The loyalty of these people is what really kept the movement alive. The nonviolence worked because people were willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. “But whether or not we succeeded in obtaining these conveniences, every one of us was firm in his resolution of passing his term in jail in perfect happiness and peace.” (Document C, Gandhi). Gandhi’s followers knew the price they would have to pay for their civil disobedience, and they all accepted it. Their unwavering loyalty kept their movement alive.
is the prime example when talking about civil disobedience, for in the 1960s he was the head of the civil rights movement. MLK’s method required one to think logically; with his reasoning segregation was not only unjust but illogic. He achieved his goals through peaceful marches and sit-ins and often used rhetorical questions to accomplish his shared goal of ending segregation. MLK also did what he did for the long run and so that future generations could live peacefully while Antigone did what she did to bring respect to the gods and the dead. MLK believed an unjust law is no law at all so breaking it in his mind is moral and right.
By juxtaposing her works together, her novella and her opinionated essay, correlation unfolds and similarity shows between the “evil” force of complete assimilation in Anthem and the complete disregard of wrongdoings being denoted as evil in How Does One Live a Rational Life in an Irrational Society. It does not come as a revelation that Equality would find strong personal relation and belief in the opinions of Rand. His resolution that the Council promotes practices of with which he disagrees and finds morally repulsive presents itself in a manner that is agreeable with any morally sound individual. Rand is extremely skillful in effectuating Ethos into her work, weaving together sentences with both beauty and
Justice is a defining factor of human motivation—it can result in the triumph or demise of a person’s actions. Nevertheless, justice is not only the blade that separates good from evil, but it is the adhesive that cements all of humanity together to form an overall gluttonous species. In the midst of injustice, both works by Martin Luther King and Sophocles question the rule of political law over moral law through civil disobedience, yet their purposes and outcomes differ from one another. Sophocles emphasizes the consequence of resistance to political rule in Antigone’s search for moral justice, while King depicts the racist cause behind his opposition to social injustice. In Antigone, Antigone portrays the suffering that comes from the consequences
Also stated in his book was the goal to create peace among the warring states by reinforcing good morals such as education, heaven, and ethics through the use of Mencius and Confucius philosophical ideas of creating a fair government. These ideas of peace helped restore the current government system for law, their judicial systems, as well as the ruling class. Xunzi’s most famous dictum was that “the nature of man is evil; his goodness is only acquired training.” What Xunzi preached was thus essentially a philosophy of culture. “Human nature at birth,” he explained, “consists of instinctual drives, which left to themselves, are selfish, anarchic, and antisocial.” Society as a whole, however, exerts a civilizing influence upon the individual, gradually training and molding him until he becomes a disciplined and morally conscious human being.
This tactic allows Chavez to gain credibility, which strengthens his overall argument that peaceful protest is key to truly changing the world. He continues to portray nonviolence in a favorable light by using Mahatma Gandhi as a prevalent historical example. Gandhi is a famous advocate for nonviolent protest, as he successfully gained India’s independence from Britain in the 1940s. With the use of Gandhi’s example, Chavez proves that nonviolent tactics can be truly effective in bringing forth change, and can even suppress the violence to create peace. Directly following this example however, Chavez illustrates the detrimental effects that a violent conflict has on a community.
He sees them as important because he believes that, these laws will create a state of peace, in a state where humans are constantly at war against each other. It is noted, that Hobbes called these laws, “theorems”, rather than actual laws, as he understood them to be moral recommendations which people should follow in order to live in a peaceful society. The first and
She is a clear supporter of individualism, meaning that she thinks you are only responsible for your own happiness and should not have to help anybody else. The novels illusion of a perfect society greatly objects to Ayn Rand’s beliefs. Equality 7-2521 rights in his notebook “And if you are not needed by your brother men, there is no reason for you to burden the earth with your bodies”. (pg20) This shows how contrasting each other both beliefs are and how the people in control of Equality's society believe that all people should be equal. Propaganda is used strongly to convince citizens that the world they live in is perfect and the way it supposed to be.
“If you make laws to keep us suppressed in a wrongful manner and without taking us in confidence” (Applebee 377). Gandhi knew that the only way that the people in India were going to make a difference was by strong voice. They knew that war was not going to solve, but rather put them into a bigger hardship. “We will gladly die and will not so much as touch you” (Applebee 377). The people of India were being held back by the mistakes being made in Britain.
But, tension and clashes do not mean antagonism. The British indeed took advantage of the fissures that were already present in the Indian society and attempted to create antagonism. During the British colonial rule, religion was never the only reason for the communal issues in India or the tensions between Hindus and Muslims, but also, favouritism and communal elections and economic status, which were in a way or another aggravated by the British. We can say that there is indeed some truth in what Sir S.A Khan said. Hindus and Muslims could not sit on the same throne at that time but they would the least want the British to sit on the throne and rule over