Justice is often misconceived as injustice, and thus some essential matters that require more legal attentions than the others are neglected; ergo, some individuals aim to change that. The principles of civil disobedience, which are advocated in both “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau and “Letter from Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King Jr. to the society, is present up to this time in the U.S. for that purpose. To begin with, Thoreau expresses that civil disobedience should be more implemented when the just resistance of the minority is seen legally unjust to the structure conformed by the majority. Supporting his position, Thoreau utilizes the role of the national tax in his time; its use which demoralizes the foreign relationship applies the principles of civil disobedience in his procedure of a nonviolent campaign. According to him, “In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action” (King 262). The first step, which is “collection of the facts,” clarify whether the matter requires civil disobedience from the society (King 262). The second step, “negotiation,” is the step where civil disobedience is practiced in a formal way; to change an unjust law, both sides come to an agreement that respects each other’s demand, (King 262). Should the second step fail, comes the “self-purification,” in which the nonconformists question their willingness to endure the consequences without any retaliation that follow enactment of civil disobedience (King 262). The fourth and the last step, “direct action,” is to execute it; coordinated actions such as protests or strikes to pressure no one, but the inexpedient government to conform to them, and advocate their movement, and thus persuade others to promote the same belief (King 262). This procedure along with principles of civil disobedience is one justifiable campaign that systematically attains its objective. King not only presents, but inspires one of the most peaceful ways to void unjust today, perhaps it could be justified. For one, President Donald John Trump’s Immigration Executive Order, which practically bans all foreign immigrants from residing nor entering the nation. America is what it is today because of its diversity. Yet, President Trump and a considerable number of people believe that the country should be of its natives instead of those who seek the privileges of its constitutions and hence potentially violates the Declaration of Independence, which says that all men have the right to seek asylum. Considering how the Declaration of Independence originated the U.S., it is ironic for the nation to limit it. Therefore, civil disobedience is required. As it is apprehended that the matter requires civil disobedience, the negotiation comes in; however, a president could be convinced, but not negotiated with his own nation, and thus this step is nullified. Moving on, the enactment of non-violent direct actions is legally safe from the nation’s military forces, but it could be met with a group of people, potentially possessive of deadly weapons, who support the Immigration Executive Order. As it could be life threatening to some extent, one should be ready to self-defend, but not retaliate to the extent where the other is harmed. Finally, launch coordinated systematic direct actions nationwide for the maximum effect. In doing so, President Trump would eventually have to nullify
Civil disobedience spawns a major and widely debated issue by many who established by well-known intelligent scholars and many examples of civil disobedience become displayed. The acts of civil disobedience can be noted in major works such as Sophocles?s Antigone, King?s ?Letter from Birmingham Jail?, or even from Plato?s ?from Crito?. A specific claim exemplified throughout these works make that civil disobedience races in gaining popularity and should remain allowed, and continued to be seen as a solution to reform poorly established laws. A claim represented is, civil disobedience is right. Rhetorically, appeals such as credibility, logic and emotion can provide support for these claims.
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." Both essays offer a complete argument for justice, but, given the conditions, King's essay remains more effective, in that its persuasive techniques have more practical application. Both essays extensively implement both emotional and ethical appeal to give their respective ideas validity.
This letter covers the ways in which peaceful protest and standing up against injustice can lead to positive results. Both pieces conveyed a similar message of standing up for what is right. The strongest rhetorical methods which Thoreau uses are allusions, logos, ethos and rhetorical questions. However, King’s use of Thoreau’s piece was written prior to the civil war, and was in response to the Mexican-American war and slavery in some territories. It was intended for US citizens; more specifically, those who are unhappy with the way the United States government is ran.
Civil disobedience has its roots in one of this country’s most fundamental principles: popular sovereignty. The people hold the power, and those entrusted to govern by the people must wield
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.
Despite the belief that fighting with violence is effective, civil disobedience has been tried throughout history and been successful. Fighting violence with violence leaves no oppertunity for peace to work. By refusing to fight back violently, Martin Luther King Jr. took a race of people, taught them the value of their voice, and they earned the right to vote. Henry David Thoreau presented his doctrine that no man should cooperate with laws that are unjust, but, he must be willing to accept the punishment society sets for breaking those laws, and hundreds of years later, people are still inspired by his words. Mohandas K. Gandhi lead an entire country to its freedom, using only his morals and faith to guide him, as well as those who followed him, proving that one man can make a difference. Civil disobedience is the single tool that any person can use to fight for what they want, and they will be heard. After centuries of questioning it, it appears that the pen truly is mightier than the sword.
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.
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 representatives 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 an influence in politics from the majority…society cannot benefit in any way from the silence of these people. Assuming that they are left out and forgotten by the system, these nonparticipants feel resentment for the isolation, and perpetuate the vicious cycle of inactivity.
Henry Thoreau started his essay about Civil Disobedience by saying "That government is best which governs least." He thinks men will someday be able to have a government that does not govern at all as government sometimes proves to be useful. It is often abused and corrupt so that it no longer represents the will of the people. Throaue does not want people to be associated with government and he even tells people to avoid itched also felt that it is his duty to go against slavery. Through the attack he talks about loads of injustices happening Mexico and just don’t want to sit but want to do something. Thoreau's Civil Disobedience adopts the need of change because of hos ethics over the commands of laws. It analyzes American social and policies, mostly slavery and the Mexican-American War.
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 his essay “Civil Disobedience,” Henry David Thoreau says, “I heartily accept the motto, ‘The government is best which governs least.’” He then clarifies his true belief that is “The government is best which governs not at all” Thoreau considers civil disobedience to be a moral and social duty of American citizens. He defines civil disobedience as an act of willful resistance, achieved by disobeying laws he considered to be hypocritical. Civil disobedience has continued into today’s world, and I believe that as long as it is civil then it is an appropriate response to perceived injustice.
The institutionalised violence and murder of young Americans with dreams of a better future enraged Americans nationwide calling forth and demanding a change. The call for change began with an African American taking a seat in a restaurant or another public building as a demonstration of peaceful civil disobedience. Civil disobedience as a whole has been a positive addition to our free society because people can see that there is a problem worth their attention. Doing is more effective and attention grabbing than just saying what one believes in and actions speak louder than words for a reason. According to Newton's laws of motion, objections at rest will stay at rest until acted upon by an outside force. That outside force can be one person who does one thing that may seem insignificant but as that motion gains momentum, when the object hits its target, the impact will be far too large to ignore. Though civil disobedience may be illegal, as time progresses our laws need to progress with
In order to make well-informed, intelligent judgments on the issue of civil disobedience, we must study our nation’s past. Woodrow Wilson once said, “A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday, does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do. We are trying to do a futile thing if we do not know where we came from or what we have been about.” Our country was formed because our founding fathers engaged in acts of civil disobedience. However, their civil disobedience was not radical; it was employed after much careful consideration and fervent attempts at reconciliation. We must evaluate carefully whether or not is it is ever appropriate to engage in civil disobedience and what impact it will have on our society.
When we ask ourselves if peaceful resistance to laws positively or negatively impacts a free society we are ultimately asking ourselves if we defend and support our Constitution. Civil disobedience has largely changed in the status quo from its true meaning and can have many different impacts on society, depending on the way we view the act. Whether or not it’s moral also depends on the manner the disobedience is carried out. Throughout history, we’ve seen many cases of civil disobedience take effect. We saw it in the 1919 Egyptian revolution, Gandhi’s idea and application of “Satyagraha”, or “Truth-force”, and even cases such as Martin Luther King’s civil rights movement. All of these examples have led to the betterment of some societal group or even an entire nation, showing that civil disobedience has great benefits to any form of society. Using the United States as a model, it’s clear that we are neither a perfectly free nor a perfectly just society, and
1. Nonviolent direct action is a group of methods used to draw attention to an issue for social change. It confronts an unjust authority using techniques of protest, sit-ins, and intervention without the use of threat or danger. Martin Luther King Jr. defined it as a way to “create such a crisis and foster such a tension” (Jacobus 380). Because the courts did not make an effort to end segregation, African Americans turned to nonviolent acts. In human experience, it is best implemented in the area of politics because, according to Dr. King, power does not only flow up, but it also flows down. For instance, the government can impose consequences on their citizens if they refuse to pay taxes and they could face penalties or jail. Nevertheless,