More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical theory utilitarianism essay
Ethical theory utilitarianism essay
Rhetorical analysis of martin luther kings
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical theory utilitarianism essay
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. In its entirety, moral relativism is comprised of the belief that, as members of various and countless cultures, we cannot judge each other’s morality. If this theory stands true, then “we have no basis for judging other cultures or values,” according to Professor McCombs’ Ethics 2. Our moral theories cannot extend throughout cultures, as we do not all share similar values. For instance, the Catholic tradition believes in the sacrament of Reconciliation. This sacrament holds that confessing one’s sins to a priest and …show more content…
Among the three most prominent moral theories: moral relativism, deontology, and utilitarianism, Martin Luther King Jr. began his journey towards racial equality as a deontologist, but quickly expressed his inner utilitarian approach nearing the end of his life. A major factor of this stark switch stemmed from the gradual governmental resistance, despite King and his follower’s nonviolent approaches. Furthermore, due to King’s acceptance and manifestation of utilitarianism, it is evident that he would support Alexander Moseley’s Just War
Dr. Martin Luther King addressed many topics in, “Letter from Birmingham Jail”. He answered all the issues that were aimed towards him in a very skillful and well thought out manner. These issues came from, “A Call For Unity”, which was a letter published by eight local clergymen expressing their feelings about what Dr. King was doing. One concern in particular that King did an outstanding job of confronting was that of the clergymen’s anxiety about him breaking the law. King addresses the question of, “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” by clarifying that there are just and unjust laws. He also goes on to explain the difference between the two, the effect of unjust laws on the people that they are aimed towards, as
Over the course of Letter from Birmingham Jail (1963), the author, Martin Luther King Jr., makes extended allusions to multiple philosophers, among them Aquinas and Socrates. His comparison would seem to indicate that he shares an affinity with them. However, the clarity with which he makes his arguments and the dedication to a single premise strikes most strongly of Kant. Just as Kant’s magnum opus, Critique of Pure Reason, attempted to completely upend a previously accepted mode of thought, so also was King’s work devoted to a single objective: the protection of civil disobedience as a form of protest such that the Civil Rights Movement could continue in uncompromised form. Despite this singularity of purpose, the complexity of the situation meant that a more nuanced response to the statement A Call for Unity as published by eight Alabama Clergymen was necessary. In this way, King’s letter in fact served a fourfold purpose: to establish himself as a legitimate authority in the eyes of his audience, to show the trials of the black in America, to justify his cause, and to argue the necessity of immediate action.
In Dr. Martin Luther King’s Letter from the Birmingham City Jail, King speaks about the society he and all other African Americans are living in. He starts to discuss just and unjust laws and states the difference between the two: “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.” Most people, at the time, thought that if a law is in place, it is for the better of society. The idea held by mostly white America that the brutality the police officers are inflicting on civilians who fight against systemic racism as a way to keep order adds to Kings problems with the current state of society. He is fighting against the ‘white moderate’, who is the white
Essay, Philosophy 115, St. Louis. University of California, Berkeley, 1995. Rottenburg, Anne. A. & Co. "Dr. Martin Luther King, Letter From a Birmingham
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr wrote a letter to fellow clergymen after being arrested for civil disobedience in Birmingham, Alabama. I agree with his statements towards the differences between just and unjust laws. A just law is one that abides by the law of God and the moral law. An example of this is when the majority party puts a law into place and are willing to follow that law along with the minority. On contrary, an unjust law is not put into place for the sake of the majority and the minority. An unjust law seems unfair to the group that is least likely to be represented. These laws are not made for everyone that's why Dr. Martin Luther King didn't have a problem with breaking unjust laws because they were just that, unjust. Unjust means not behaving according to what is morally right and fair. He says that there is a difference between law, just and unjust and with morality (good and bad). Dr. King also says that it's
After being jailed in the Birmingham city jail, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist minister who preached nonviolence, wrote this response to a published statement by eight fellow clergymen from Alabama. This letter was not only composed under somewhat constricting circumstances but was written in a way that can be analyzed to be considered as a classic argument. Not only does it contain the five elements needed in a rhetorical situation, but the letter includes the six parts of an argument, the five types of claims, and even the three types of proofs. Dr. King’s letter fully satisfies all requirements needed in order to be considered a classic argument.
On April 16, 1963, from a jail in Birmingham, Alabama, Martin Luther King Jr. composed an extensive letter to eight clergymen who condemned the timing of the civil rights movement. Although the letter was addressed to these eight clergymen, the Letter from Birmingham Jail speaks to a national audience, especially King’s “Christian and Jewish brothers”(King, 29). His peaceful but firm letter serves as a remarkably persuasive voice to an immensely chaotic mess, and is seen as a major turning point in the civil rights movement. King believes that without direct action, the full rights for African Americans could never be achieved. He defends the impatience of people in the civil rights movement, upholding that without forceful demonstrations, equality will never be reached. King upholds that human rights must take precedence over unjust laws. His eloquent language and use of classical argumentation make his case resilient and convincing. King’s expert use of pathos invokes anger, sympathy and empathy; his impeccable use of logos made his argument rational to all; and his use of ethos, especially his use of biblical references, makes his opinions more authoritative.
In the letter, “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King, Jr, and the speech, “The Ballot or the Bullet” by Malcolm X, the authors discuss their very different viewpoints on what form of freedom would it take to accomplished their goal. While King believes that peaceful approaches would allow the black community to achieve equality with the white Americans, Malcolm X thinks achieving equality with white Americans is nearly impossible; therefore, he preaches a separatist doctrine. Although King and X are both fighting for the black community’s rights and their integration into the nation’s system, their approaches differ significantly. King and X differ in three main areas: their ultimate goals, the strategies to accomplish those goals, and their use of rhetoric.
King believed that the problem with violence as a means of pursuing freedom is that revolutionaries must often employ means that threaten to subvert it therefore is illegitimate, and as Hanna Arendt states in On Revolution, “Violence has no intrinsic value, and on the human scale of relative values, will always lie beneath the human needs and interests that is serves.” Albert Camus states “Violence can only be an extreme limit which combats another form of violence, as, for example, in the case of insurrection” Both Arendt and Camus agree with King that Violence, although justifiable in extreme cases, can never be legitimate. King sought to legitimize the Civil Rights Movement by exhorting and adhering to a philosophy of non-violence grounded in morals and human ethics.
Martin Luther King, Jr. advocated nonviolence to suppress oppression in his essay, “The Power of Nonviolent Action.” King's factual and reasoned approach is intended to win his adversaries over by appealing to their consciences. King realized that the best strategy to liberate African-Americans and gain them justice was to use nonviolent forms of resistance. He wanted to eliminate the use of violence as a means to manage and establish cooperative ways of interacting. Moreover, King states that the “oppressed people must organize themselves into a militant and nonviolent mass movement” in order to achieve the goal of integration. The oppressed must “convince the oppressors that all he seeks is justice, for both himself and the white man” (King, 345). Furthermore, King agreed with Gandhi that if a law is unjust, it is the duty of the oppressed to break the law, and do what they believe to be right. Once a law is broken, the person must be willing to accept the ...
According to Martin Luther King Jr., “There are two types of laws: there are just and there are unjust laws” (King 293). During his time as civil rights leader, he advocated civil disobedience to fight the unjust laws against African-Americans in America. For instance, there was no punishment for the beatings imposed upon African-Americans or for the burning of their houses despite their blatant violent, criminal, and immoral demeanor. Yet, an African-American could be sentenced to jail for a passive disagreement with a white person such as not wanting to give up their seat to a white passenger on a public bus. Although these unjust laws have been righted, Americans still face other unjust laws in the twenty-first century.
During the 1960’s, racial divisions were evident through the separate but equal laws throughout the south. Whites passed all of those separate but equal laws. Nonetheless, Martin Luther King Jr. supported both the working with whites and black children being educated with white children. His philosophy did not punish whites for their malice towards including blacks, but his philosophy did include embracing those who he felt were doing harm to him. Therefore, Martin Luther King Jr.’s philosophy made the most sense because he advocated rights of people, without resorting to the divisions that the 1960’s were used to.
In this paper, I will define and explain Utilitarianism, then evaluate the proofs made to support it. In the nineteenth century, the philosophy of Utilitarianism was developed by John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism is the theory that man should judge everything in life based upon its ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. While Jeremy Bentham is acknowledged as the father of Utilitarianism, it was Mill who defended its structure through reason. He continually reasoned that because human beings are capable of achieving conscious thought, they are not simply satisfied by physical pleasures; humans desire to pleasure their minds as well. Once a person has achieved this high intellectual level, they do not want to descend to the lower level of intellect where they began. Mill explains that “pleasure, and
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.
In explaining Cultural Relativism, it is useful to compare and contrast it with Ethical Relativism. Cultural Relativism is a theory about morality focused on the concept that matters of custom and ethics are not universal in nature but rather are culture specific. Each culture evolves its own unique moral code, separate and apart from any other. Ethical Relativism is also a theory of morality with a view of ethics similarly engaged in understanding how morality comes to be culturally defined. However, the formulation is quite different in that from a wide range of human habits, individual opinions drive the culture toward distinguishing normal “good” habits from abnormal “bad” habits. The takeaway is that both theories share the guiding principle that morality is bounded by culture or society.