Rhetorical Analysis of “Is American Nonviolence Possible?” ¬¬¬Though most American people claim to seek peace, the United States remains entwined with both love and hate for violence. Regardless of background or personal beliefs, the vast majority of Americans enjoy at least one activity that promotes violence whether it be professional fighting or simply playing gory video games. Everything is all well and good until this obsession with violence causes increased frequency of real world crimes. In the article, “Is American Nonviolence Possible” Todd May proposes a less standard, more ethical, fix to the problem at hand. The majority of the arguments brought up make an appeal to the pathos of the reader with a very philosophical overall tone. In the beginning of his article, Todd May opens up by speaking about the recent Boston Marathon bombing and other shootings, effectively playing of the Kairos available to him. The immediate emotional involvement requested from …show more content…
This may alienate those who do not become emotionally involved and are in search of a physical way to decrease shootings and bombings. An optimistic plan to salvage America’s morality by working through one person at a time is well-meant but not the meaty plan of action many may desire.
Though not necessarily a full, well-rounded package appealing to everyone and anyone, May’s article does resonate well with the readers that are inclined to pathos and allow themselves to become emotionally invested. This is due to May’s strong belief in nonviolence, which is most likely the very reason this article was written. As a philosopher, May is able to offer what some may consider to be a one-sided fix to a multidimensional problem. Unfortunately, not everyone is inclined to listen to their emotions or has strong, well-grounded
“All machines have their friction―and possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil… But when the friction comes to have its machine… I say, let us not have such a machine any longer” (Thoreau 8). In Henry David Thoreau’s essay “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” the author compares government to a machine, and its friction to inequity. He believes that when injustice overcomes a nation, it is time for that nation’s government to end. Thoreau is ashamed of his government, and says that civil disobedience can fight the system that is bringing his country down. Alas, his philosophy is defective: he does not identify the benefits of organized government, and fails to recognize the danger of a country without it. When looked into, Thoreau’s contempt for the government does not justify his argument against organized democracy.
The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton proves the point that violence can be justified if necessary. To inflict change in their lives people often fight with violence instead of peace to evoke change. The world strives for change everyday whether or not you like it. How the people create a change in society whether they use peace or war, it is up to them to decide how to modify our ever changing world. Violence and fight between the Socs and Greasers tells us that both can be justified if it inflicts positive change in society. ‘
Would everyone like to see how the community is affected ? The community and neighborhood is facing some major consequences. According to “Excerpts Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau described how this one person refused to pay the taxes to the government he decides to say something but his saying resulted to him being sent to prison for trying to stand up to the government. The government has not been telling us the actual issues . Based on the excerpt from the “Civil Disobedience” there are exactly three main points to the story. The first main idea is the people have been using their own ideas to try to get a way to end the government way for all of us to live because we need to see the point for all of us to live a life in
In Chavez's argument, he explained the importance of nonviolence during the Civil Rights Movement. He used Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s movement as an example of successful protest using nonviolence. Although Dr. King's example proved to be effective, after he died, several members of the movement resorted to violence which caused the death of thousands of Americans. Chavez argued nonviolence is the only way to protest violence in order to attract support for his cause: the farm workers' movement. Chavez's rhetorical choices, through his tone and allusion to history, effectively influenced farmers to protest without violence.
“I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends.”
As long as there have been men and women on this planet there has been violence. This is an immutable fact. In all likelihood, there will always be violence within the human race. Robert Heinlein said, "Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Nations and peoples who forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms." Indeed this is plausible. The premise of these arguments is that giving a creature with a proven track record of violence a phenomenally powerful tool of destruction is less than wise. As an alternative, this paper proposes to limit access to such powerful devices (semi-automatic firearms) through the use of tracking methods, restricted sales, and heavier penalties for illegal possession of firearms. The firearms most specifically addressed are semi-automatic weapons including repeating rifles and handguns.
Chavez begins the essay by identifying King’s life as a clear “example of power that nonviolence brings to bear in the world.” The connection that Chavez makes between King’s life and nonviolence, sets in stone the main idea of the passage. It can be expected that the author will advocate the predominance of nonviolence over violence. Establishing the main idea allows Chavez to smoothly transition into one of his complex rhetorical
The role of violence in the fight against injustice is a tricky one. If an oppressor is willing to use violence to maintain control should not the oppressed use violence to achieve liberation? Franz Fanon would argue that the pent up anger and frustration must be released in violent action to tear down the oppressor’s regime. However, there is a better way and that is through non-violence and understanding that Martin Luther King, Jr. champions. Only through creating tension around injustice via non-violent direct action can the conversation begin around mutual understanding and justice. It is this justice achieved through non-violent means that will last as violent action is ultimately unjust in nature.
Thoreau and an Incomplete Remedy for Injustice Throughout “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau provides a number of reasons why individuals have the right to disobey laws contrary to individual conscience. For example, Thoreau explains that the government is not responsible for the triumphs of man (61), that all men recognize the right to revolution when the government is inefficient (63), and that adherence to unjust law separates holiness from the individual (66). Thoreau’s ideal is an aspiring one: that common man can be trusted to break only the laws that violate one’s virtuous conscience, thus resulting in the achievement of a more moral democracy based on the autonomous choices of citizens. Likewise, it is an affront to one’s dignity to blindly
In “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau uses the idea of humanity and machines throughout the essay. At one point, he uses them together, asking whether the soldiers marching toward a war they know to be unjust are “men at all,” or instead “small moveable forts and magazines” (77). The defining characteristic of men, for Thoreau, is their conscience. When these soldiers suppressed their conscience, they in turn reduced their humanity. Conscience is the God-given faculty by which people can decide right from wrong. While government pushes people to follow the law, Thoreau claims that people should rather govern themselves through conscience. Altogether, Thoreau develops the idea that conscience preserves humanity, while the law suppresses it.
Throughout Thoreau’s essay, he expressed his opinions and beliefs on the importance of civil disobedience in a society. He talked about how one must use his or her moral sense, conscience, to decide what is just and unjust. From here, Thoreau urged his readers to take action, to stop the machine from continuing its lifeless duty. His call to action is if a system is prone to corruption, the people must disobey it. This means that personal endangerment may be needed to do what is right. Going against the status quo to uphold justice and ethics is the basic message behind Thoreau’s essay.
The pursuit of happiness may sometimes require a person to oppose laws that they find to be unjust. Freedom of speech is a protected right of all citizens of the United States, but there are times when people also have to take action to make their voices heard. As long as doing so does not encroach upon the legal rights of others, peaceful resistance to laws positively impacts a free society. As Henry David Thoreau states in his essay, Civil Disobedience,"There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly." If a democracy is a government created by the people and for the people, when it fails to do this well, the people have a responsibility to point it out.
...ens should have more faith in the established institution’s ability to deliver justice over that of a vigilante serial killer, but for many, that is not the case. Second, Darkly Dreaming Dexter demonstrates that there is not as clear of a barrier between what is morally right and wrong as North American society sometimes believes, seeing as murder, which is usually regarded as undeniably wrong, can sometimes be justified and placed in the spectrum of acceptable behaviour. Blindly dividing actions up into right and wrong, then, is not only irresponsible, but also dangerous, as it can lead individuals to inappropriately oversimplify complex situations. Ultimately, then, a society that unwaveringly opposes all forms violence can be just as problematic as one that condones them.
“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” (Mahatma Gandhi), welcome to the world of non-violence, not similar to ‘disney land’ but merely a small philosophical village coated in white, decorated with crystals and abundant in doves; white resembling peace, crystals for clarity and pure spirit and doves for .. I don’t know, I guess I have been driven by my imagination.
I choose to watch “The surprising decline of violence” by Steve Pinker. In this particular video, Pinker compares the twentieth century with the twenty-first century, by showing the viewers statistical facts, and references from the bible. Throughout the lecture, Pinker shows the audience that we live in a much more peaceful world than our ancestors did. Although Pinker knows this is just the beginning of the twenty-first century he is able to prove that the current human race is headed towards a peaceful destination. Pinker really emphasizes the physical aspect of violence and was able to prove his claims with research. Pinker then gives the audience some possibilities on why there has been a decline in violence, the first one being “Hobbes got it right”, the second explanation, “Life is cheap”, the third explanation, “Nonzero-sum games “and the fourth explanation, “Expanding Circle”. Pinker then hits the audience with a hard but a truthful question why it's there peace and war in this world and what are we doing not only right but also