Comparing Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr.
Any one can say that a law is unfair and unjust. However, who is really willing to accept the consequences for going against an unjust law? Is breaking this law really worth the punishment? The government is the one to decide whether a law is reasonable, but what if a member of the public believes that a law is not? Should he rebel against this law? Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. answered yes to this question and believed that one should speak out against an injustice. They both believed that government had many flaws. Even though they shared many beliefs in many of the same subjects concerning Civil Disobedience, they had many different views on how the government should work and how the citizen should be treated by society.
Both Martin Luther King Jr. and Thoreau believed that one should act out against an unjust law by means of peaceful protest. If one is going to openly express his ideas of disagreeing with an unjust law, he must be willing to accept the consequences. Both Martin Luther King Jr. and Thoreau demonstrated this acceptance of consequences by going to jail without repercussion. This shows that they truly believed in the eradication of such a law that forces them to do something that they do not want to do. Martin Luther King Jr. wanted was arrested for gathering with others to protest peacefully, which the police claimed was unlawful, because they we...
"There is a higher law than civil law- the law of conscience- and that when these laws are in conflict, it is a citizen's duty to obey the voice of God within rather than that of the civil authority without," (Harding 207). As Harding described in his brief explanation of Henry David Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, there are some instances in which it is necessary to disobey a social law. Martin Luther King, Jr., in addition to Thoreau, reasoned that should a civil law be judged unjust, one had a moral obligation not only to himself but also to those around him to disregard that particular law in exchange for a higher one voiced by God.
Throughout a series of books, and now movies known as Divergent they hit a lot of points as to what is believed as a “good society”. In the series, Divergent all must conform and fall into a certain category Dauntless, Abnegation, Erudite, Candor, or Amity . If one fails to do so, and falls into all of the categories they are known as “Divergent," and must be killed for failing to conform to traditional society standards and rules. This relates to Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau, because he talks about humans not needing a form of structure set by a hierarchy, such as a government. A good society according to Thoreau, is one with little to no government involvement, one that respects laws to a certain extent, and one that follows
"an unjust law is no law at all."- quote by St. Augustine who was an Christian theologian and philosopher, whose writings influenced the development of Western Christianity. Martin Luther King Jr. was a baptist minister and civil rights leader that made advancements for civil rights peacefully, exclusively for African Americans in America. Mohandas Gandhi was a non-violent leader of the Indian independence movement against British rule. Accordingly, both MLK Jr. and Gandhi were leaders for civil rights that practiced and preached non-violent approaches for their freedom.Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi were both valid in their judgment to break the law for their peaceful protests.
Comparing Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience and Martin Luther King's Letter From a Birmingham Jail. The two essays, "Civil Disobedience," by Henry David Thoreau, and "Letter From a Birmingham Jail," by Martin Luther King, Jr., effectively illustrate the authors' opinions of justice. Each author has his main point; Thoreau, in dealing with justice as it relates to government, asks for "not at once no government, but at once a better government. King contends that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
King and Thoreau?s approach to civil disobedience is a more civilized way to protest than those at the WTO. King in his letter of response to the Birmingham clergy, ?Letter from Birmingham Jail? he list four basics steps to a non-violent campaign: collection of the facts to determine if injustice exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action (174). In his letter he points out that the individuals involved in the campaign attended a series of workshops on nonviolence. During the workshops individuals were to ask themselves if they were able to accept blows without retaliating and if they could endure the ordeal of jail (174). Thoreau?s approach is slightly different at an individual level but yet was nonviolent. He refused to pay his poll tax, which he felt was unjust. The result was he was arrested and jailed. He applied a type of civil disobedience without eliciting violence.
on ways to be civil but disobedient, they have opposite ways of convicing you. Dr.
Mahatma Gandhi, a prominent leader in the independence movement of India once said, “Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state becomes lawless and corrupt.”(brainyquotes.com) Gandhi states that protest and civil disobedience are necessary when the authority becomes unscrupulous. This correlates to “Declaration of Independence,” by Thomas Jefferson; “Civil Disobedience,” by Henry David Thoreau; and “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” by Martin Luther King Jr., because all three leaders felt that civil disobedience was important to help protest against an unjust ruling. Jefferson stood up to the injustice of the king by writing the Declaration of Independence and urged others to stand up for the independence of America. Thoreau exemplified
Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience took the original idea of transcendentalism and put it into action. His civil acts of defiance were revolutionary as he endorsed a form of protest that did not incorporate violence or fear. Thoreau’s initial actions involving the protest of many governmental issues, including slavery, landed him in jail as he refused to pay taxes or to run away. Ironically, more than one hundred years later, the same issue of equal rights was tearing the United States apart. Yet African Americans, like Martin Luther King Jr., followed in Thoreau’s footsteps by partaking in acts of civil disobedience. Sit-ins and peaceful rallies drew attention to the issue while keeping it from escalating into a much more violent problem. Thoreau’s ideas were becoming prevalent as they were used by Civil Rights Activists and the Supreme Court, in such cases as Brown v. Board of Education. The ideology that was created by Thoreau aided the activists and the government in their quest for equality and a more just system of law.
Throughout modern American culture certain laws passed by the majority have been considered unjust by a wise minority. However, with the logical and emotional appeal of hard fought battles, voices have been heard, and the minds of the majority can sometimes be converted to see the truth. Thoreau, after spending a night in jail and seeing the truth hidden behind the propaganda of the majority, became convinced that he could no longer accept his government’s behavior of passing laws that benefit the majority with degrading the minority. It’s quite ironic that by the government imprisoning Thoreau he became freer then ever before. He was able to see how the government turned peaceably inclined men into controllable machines. Thoreau saw how the government dealt with its citizens as only a body, while completely disregarding the sense, intellect, and moral beliefs of its people. In his essay “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau stated that “a government ruled by majority in all cases cannot be based on justice.” He further believed that “under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also prison.” This point made by Thoreau can be seen as the truth throughout history. A just man never sits by quietly watching the majority degrade the minority to suit their own immoral purposes. Like Thoreau, another just man who stood out from the quiet minority was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. King was, as well, willing to suffer for his views to put an end to racial segregation, and was arrested on numerous occasions for holding strong in his believes and spreading his message throughout the minds of all God’s children. King often cited conscience as a guide to obeying just laws and disobeying unjust ones. In an essay written by King titled “A letter from Birmingham Jail,” King clearly defines the interpretation of the differerence between the two kinds of laws. “An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is a difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.” To further understand this King quotes from St. Augustine himself who once stated “any law that uplifts human personality is just.
In the past in this country, Thoreau wrote an essay on Civil disobedience saying that people make the law and have a right to disobey unjust laws, to try and get those laws changed.
In Henry Thoreau’s essay, Resistance to Civil Government, the harmless actions he takes to rebel against the government are considered acts of civil disobedience. He talks about how the government acts wrongful such as, slavery and the Mexican-American war. This writing persuades Nathaniel Heatwole, a twenty-year-old college student studying at Guildford College in Greensboro, North Carolina, to take matters into his own hands, by smuggling illegal items on multiple Southwest airplanes. The reason in that being, is to show the people that our nation is unsafe and dangerous. In doing this, he takes his rebellion one step too far, by not only jeopardizing his life, but as well as many other innocent lives.
Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) was a philosopher and writer who is well known for his criticism of the American government during the time. During Thoreau’s life, there were two major issues being debated in the United States: slavery and the Mexican-American War. Both issues greatly influenced his essay, as he actually practiced civil disobedience in his own life by refusing to pay taxes in protest of the Mexican War. He states that the government should be based on conscience and that citizens should refuse to follow the law and has the duty not to participate and stay as a member of an unjust institution like the government. I argue that the notion of individualism and skepticism toward government is essential in the basis of many important reform movements in the modern society.
Martin Luther King and Henry David Thoreau each write exemplary persuasive essays that depict social injustice and discuss civil disobedience, which is the refusal to comply with the law in order to prove a point. In his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” King speaks to a specific audience: the African Americans, and discusses why he feels they should bring an end to segregation. Thoreau on the other hand, in “Civil Disobedience,” speaks to a broader, non-addressed audience as he largely expresses his feelings towards what he feels is an unjust government. Both essays however, focus on the mutual topics of morality and justice and use these topics to inform and motivate their audience to, at times, defy the government in order to establish the necessary justice.
In “Civil Disobedience” Thoreau claims that men should act from their conscience. Thoreau believed it was the duty of a person to disobey the law if his conscience says that the law is unjust. He believed this even if the law was made by a democratic process. Thoreau wrote that a law is not just, only because the majority votes for it. He wrote, “Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?” (Thoreau, P. 4). Thoreau wanted a government in the United States that would make the just laws based on conscience, because the people of the country would not let the elected representatives be unfair. Thoreau did not think people can disobey any law when they want to. He believed that people should obey just laws; however, Thoreau thought that not all laws were right, and he wrote that a man must obey what is right, not what is the law: “It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right” (Thoreau, P. 4).
Gandhi and Thoreau both had injustices their confronted with, they both wanted to protest something their government was doing. They did it in different but alike ways, civil disobedience and nonviolent protest. Both ways got the action they wanted and needed to be able to fix the problem that was displayed. They both wanted the same outcome, a fix of the problem. They knew the way to fix the problem and injustice was to protest the problem.