Acting vs. Contemplating: The Battle for the Good Life In the pursuit of the Good Life, there will be cases where opposing ideas will come into conflict. Therefore, it is the individual’s responsibility to determine what will lead to the most beneficial outcome. However, choosing sides is more easily said than done since positive and negative consequences arise regardless of what value is chosen to pursue. Most likely, the path chosen will determine whether or not the good life is reached. Will achieving desired goals be a result of taking immediate action, or carefully contemplating an issue? Specific instances that demonstrates the conflict between choosing to act directly or to contemplate are portrayed in Martin Luther King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail and Fletcher’s take on Luna the Killer Whale. After a careful evaluation of the two aforementioned pieces, I concluded that the path to the good life is not concrete, nor written in a handbook for one to precisely follow. Instead, certain paths lead to various …show more content…
Is one or the other a requisite for the Good Life? Martin Luther King, Jr was imprisoned due to expressing “extremist” values. Unfortunately, taking immediate, risky actions account for possible consequences. For this reason, many choose to contemplate rather than to take immediate action. Fear takes over one’s desire to act due to the obvious potential harm. However, as Martin Luther King, people tend to admire those who speak up for what is right. Precisely, a balance occurs between values. In order to search for the good life, one must outweigh the risks and choose which choice is more reasonable and will potentially be more beneficial to society in the long run. Taking action may have led to King’s imprisonment and later death, but a society as a whole benefited from a desegregated
Throughout the realm of morality, there are three dominant theories that have prevailed: moral relativism, deontology, and utilitarianism. The esteemed Martin Luther King Jr. was a prominent leader of the Civil Rights Movement and well renowned for his tendencies to promote nonviolence. He frequently encouraged other blacks to adhere to his path of nonviolence during this time of oppression. Through careful observation of King’s texts, it is quite evident that he conforms to deontology in his early efforts for racial quality and, in the latter part of the Civil Rights Movement, he blatantly expresses a utilitarian approach. Based upon this identification, it is further discernible that Martin Luther King Jr. would, if need be, conform to and support the Just War Theory if nonviolent attempts proved fruitless.
Through Martin Luther King Jr.’s brilliant usage of sensible logos, thought-provoking rhetorical questions, and accentuating parallel structure in his persuasive letter, the white clergymen were influenced to at least alter their perspectives towards the treatment of blacks and promote supplementary equality rights for all. As a noble advocator of desegregation, social justice, and human dignity through diplomatic methods, he ignites a new social movement that brought about freedom from oppression and democratic reformation. With a long-standing desire for a peaceful community among all races, King encourages those he targets with the letter to achieve God’s will and overturn racial intolerance caused by misjudgment.
Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King, in “Civil Disobedience” and “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” respectively, both conjure a definitive argument on the rights of insubordination during specified epochs of societal injustice. Thoreau, in his enduring contemplation of life and its purpose, insightfully analyzes the conflicting relationship between the government and the people it governs. He considerately evokes the notion that the majority of people are restrained by the government and society from making decisions with consideration of their conscience and that people need to overcome the reign of the government to realize their own ethics and morals. King, in accordance, eloquently and passionately contends the injustice presented in the unfair treatment of and the discriminatory attitude towards Blacks. Even though, Thoreau successfully accentuates his main concerns in his argument, his effectiveness in persuasion—appeals, conclusion, and practical application—pales in comparison to that of King’s.
The search for our definition of the good life is wrought with trials and tribulation, working to overcome deep seeded trends of oppression within society or family. For some, finding the good life requires them to rise above subjugation, regardless of consequences. This struggle is illustrated in Letter from Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King Jr, who argues the necessity of peaceful protest to find a future of equality free from persecution, and in Hobson’s Choice by Harold Brighouse where a woman must rise above her father’s tyrannical will to find a good life. While no struggle is without its consequences, the finality of finding the good life and the benefits of that achievement ultimately overrides the fight for happiness.
Innocent members of the community such as Scout Finch prove that there are other mindsets to be taken. “ ‘I think there's just one kind of folks. Folks’ ” (Lee 304). Martin Luther King and his wife Coretta both stood up very publicly and deliberately for their convictions, but even ordinary heroes such as Rosa Parks can spark social revolution. “ ‘I was just plain tired, and my feet hurt.’ ” So she sat there, refusing to get up” (King 3). Social justice is not elusive to everyone, but in cases like the one portrayed in “American Tragedy” differentiation between race and class still affect the minds of prominent members of civilization. In the end, true civic equality is not obtainable for everyone because of age-old practices that encourage racial segregation, communal fear to adjust comfortable habits, and because it would be necessary for all people to take part in such an undertaking, which is neither realistic nor justifiable. Hope for such a day when differentiation and prejudice are no longer prominent in society’s issues is shown in small acts of defiance everyday, by exhibiting respect for all when it is not offered. “She would quickly subordinate her own desires to those of the family or the community, because she knew cooperation was the only way to survive” (Houston
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.
Are our decisions subject to the inclinations of our past actions, as behaviorist would proclaim? Or do we have governance over our actions, or in other words, free will, as Humanists would argue? Furthermore, what is “right?” Is it to succumb to the societal and religious expectations of “good?” Or is it to act on one’s own intent? These are the questions that Alex from Stanley Kubrick’s Film adaptation of Burgess’ “A Clockwork Orange” and Hamlet from Shakespeare’s celebrated tragedy both struggle in answering as they
First, Dr. King stated that one positive response to the dilemma is to develop a rugged sense of somebodyness (p.130). During the time of slavery, the White Americas used tactics to cause the African-Americans feel as if they were not important as a person. In doing this, the white slave owners successfully accomplished their goals. But little did they know, that this type of punishment would not only affect the current generation of that time, but the future generations to come. Taking a look at the incidents that occurred in Selma, Alabama, we see African-Americans standing up and showing the nation that they were humans just like every other breathing human.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. received a Nobel Prize and was honored by the President of the United States for his contributions to society. On the other hand, he was prosecuted, convicted, incarcerated, and had his sentence reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. These explanations seem rather contradictory. If what he did was noble, why was he jailed for his actions? When we take into account these manifestations of the government's attitude towards Martin Luther King, we can safely make the assumption that the government is not always justified in the laws that it creates. Our government's original purpose was to keep order and ensure freedom to its people. As history has shown us, as in the case of African Americans, the government will expand its role and take away liberties of the few. The individual is justified in acting out in civil disobedience when the government restricts the liberties of the individual.
History has encountered many different individuals whom have each impacted the 21 in one way or another; two important men whom have revolted against the government in order to achieve justice are Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. Both men impacted numerous individuals with their powerful words, their words carried the ability to inspire both men and women to do right by their morality and not follow unjust laws. “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience” by David Henry Thoreau along with King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, allow the audience to understand what it means to protest for what is moral.
In his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of the “appalling silence” of those who are innately good, yet refuse to take any action, expressing that nonexpression is a greater evil than any radical viewpoint. To this group, you, who may not vote, who may not speak out against injustice, who may not express any opinions, I ask of you: does this silent portion of the population still exist, quietly living its lives and creating minimal impact on the world around it, or are King’s messages antiquated and outdated in modern society? Are you the modern-day representative of this unfortunate group? These “good people” do exist in large numbers in the United States, and the nation has to pay for their inactivity. Laws not supported by a majority opinion, the lack of influence in politics from the majority.society cannot benefit in any way from the silence of these people.
King peacefully pleads for racial tolerance and the end of segregation by appealing to the better side of white Americans. His attempt to persuade America about the justice of his cause, and to gain support for the civil rights movement was emotionally moving. He spoke to all races, but his rhetoric was patriotic, and culturally similar to, and focused on African-Americans. He was able to make practical use of a history many Americans are proud of. The use of repetition reinforced his words making it simpler and more straightforward to follow. His speech remains powerful because it is still relevant today, like economic injustices and stereotyping. This reading can be applied to remedying current issues of stereotyping, racism, and discrimination by changing white racial resentment and eliminating racial
Doctor Martin Luther King Jr.’s essay “Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience” has two main features. The first feature of King’s essay is a call for action; action to bring about change. The second feature, the more easily viewed feature of this essay is a call for a specific type of action to bring about a specific type of change. The change King wishes to bring about is a peace and equality brought about through non-violent actions.
Whenever people discuss race relations today and the effect of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, they remember the work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He was and continues to be one of the most i...
One of the world’s best known advocates of non-violent social change strategies, Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK), synthesized ideals drawn from many different cultural traditions. Recent studies of him emphasize the extent to which his ideals were rooted in African-American religious traditions which were then shaped by his education. The image of a social activist and leader was the result of extensive formal education, strong personal values and licit ethics. This excellence in leadership can be traced to his character which is shaped by his moral values and personality. We look at MLK and these traits to reveal the rationalization of his rise to transracial leadership in our society. Through studying the life and example of Martin Luther King, Jr., we learn that his moral values of integrity, love, truth, fairness, caring, non-violence, achievement and peace were what motivated him. King is not great because he is well known, he is great because he served as the cause of peace and justice for all humans. King is remembered for his humanity, leadership and his love of his fellow man regardless of skin color. This presence of strong moral values developed King’s character which enabled him to become one of the most influential leaders of our time. Integrity is a central value in a leader’s character and it is through integrity that King had vision of the truth. The truth that one day this nation would live up to the creed, "all men are created equal". No man contributed more to the great progress of blacks during the 1950’s and 1960’s than Martin Luther King, Jr. He was brought up believing "one man can make a difference", and this is just what he did. Integrity has a large effect on what we think, say and do, it is through King’s thoughts and actions that enabled so many people to have trust and faith in him. Through King’s integrity he believed that America, the most powerful and richest nation in the world will lead the way to a revolution of values. This revolution will change the way society views itself, shifting from a "thing-orientated" society to a "person-orientated" society. When this occurs, King believed that racism will be capable of being conquered and this nation will be "Free at last." King’s unconditional love for all humans was another value that strongly influenced his character and allowed him to have such excellent leadership ability.