Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Henry Thoreau and Martin Luther King similarities and differences
Henry Thoreau and Martin Luther King similarities and differences
Henry Thoreau and Martin Luther King similarities and differences
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Unjust and Just Laws
What is an “unjust law”? Though described differently by many an “unjust law” could be said to be a law that is right legally and not morally. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry Thoreau both have dealings with the government due to their disagreement with laws that they saw as unjust. Both men were sent to jail for not complying with the laws put in place by the government. They do so however in ways that do not subtract from the overall point they are trying to prove. Though they handle their situations differently they ultimately strive for the same goal in making those who are of higher power and those who are everyday people see their wrong doings in following these laws. Thoreau said, “Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?” These men want people to realize that just because “majority rules” does not mean majority is right.
Both Dr.King and Henry Thoreau were protesting against similar things. Both men were working
…show more content…
Martin Luther King Jr. both want people to realize that civil rebellion is sometimes needed to prove a valid point. Both men used some form of protest to show their disagreement with the laws in place. For Dr. King it was protest against the racial inequality the oppressed his people. For Thoreau it was protest against a tax that he did not agree with or support. They also want people to think for themselves and not comply to laws that they do not agree are just. We should ultimately challenge our government to make it work for us and not against us. Dr King said, “One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” So if the majority is working against what you believe is morally right take a stance against the majority, because “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
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.
In 1848, David Thoreau addressed and lectured civil disobedience to the Concord Lyceum in response to his jail time related to his protest of slavery and the Mexican War. In his lecture, Thoreau expresses in the beginning “That government is best which governs least,” which sets the topic for the rest of the lecture, and is arguably the overall theme of his speech. He chastises American institutions and policies, attempting to expand his views to others. In addition, he advances his views to his audience by way of urgency, analyzing the misdeeds of the government while stressing the time-critical importance of civil disobedience. Thoreau addresses civil disobedience to apprise the people the need for a civil protest to the unjust laws created
...for him to do). Instead Thoreau believes that as unjust and imperfect as democracy is at that particular time, he looks to better times, a time when legislators have more wisdom and integrity and hold humanity in a higher regard. He recognizes that fairness exists in the hearts and minds of individuals, some whom he knows personally and he holds to a hope that men like these can and will transform what is in their conscience into a “state at last which can afford to be just to all men and to treat the individual with respect…”
Civil Disobedience occurs when an individual or group of people are in violation of the law rather than a refusal of the system as a whole. There is evidence of civil disobedience dating back to the era after Jesus was born. Jesus followers broke the laws that went against their faith. An example of this is in Acts 4:19-20,”God told the church to preach the gospel, so they defied orders to keep quiet about Jesus,” In my opinion civil disobedience will always be needed in the world. The ability to identify with yourself and knowing right from wrong helps to explain my opinion. Often in society when civil
From the creation of the very first civilizations, people have been using laws for potential disputes and or other issues that they come across. With the evolution of time and the expansion of the legal system, many laws were established that did not promote justice and equality. In essence, they did not take into consideration the ethical and racial implications that these laws generated. In our days, laws of this nature are still in effect and are characterized as unjust. They can be found anywhere and can take various forms.
Each individual’s beliefs, ethics, and their background plays a role in their definitions of what a just and unjust law ought to be. According to Dr. King, a just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral laws or the laws of God, meanwhile, an unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. According to me, a just should be one that is ethical, fair, unbiased, and one that honors each individual who resides within the law’s jurisdictions without any discrimination or racism; a law that is respected and honored by the nation as a whole and not in parts. Within our American history, unjust laws such as the Jim Crow Laws existed which were discriminatory and racist towards the African community as the African were a different standard and a different level of treatment than the rest of the non-African communities across the nation. In our modern society and within our nation, unjust laws such as the right to bear arms and capital punishment exist. The second amendment, the right to bear arms being an unjust law as it’s failing to protect and secure the individuals across the nation. Capital punishment, on the other hand, is also an unjust law as it’s a law which authorizes the murder of another human legally; it’s inhumane. Across the globe, in countries such as Saudi Arabia, the male
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.
...goals, they both discuss similar topics of morality and justice under a government’s rule. In hopes of informing and motivating people, Thoreau and King explain how and why these people should take non-violent action towards unjust laws. From each author’s vivid examples and brilliant analogies, we learn the importance of fighting for justice and maintaining morality. Most importantly, Thoreau and King argue in favor of civil disobedience not only to inspire a fight for freedom from the government, but also to ensure that the people’s God given rights and rights to individuality are preserved for generations.
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.
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).
According to Martin Luther King Jr., “Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust (King, 1963).” King was the leader of the nonviolent resistance and this quote is from the “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” Rebellion against the government should be necessary because it could help the rest of the people, motivate the government and the people, or lastly, what it means to be rebellious.
Previous generations have opposed wars that promoted oppression, they fought for human rights. By engaging in these activities these individuals had to go against a higher power. They had to disagree with the system and how it operates. Therefore, they engaged in the act of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is an active, refusal way of obeying certain laws, demands, and commands of a government or higher power. There are many individuals who have previously engaged in the act of civil disobedience people such as; Mahatma Gandhi, Henry Thoreau, Martin Luther King, college students in the 1960s and many more. All these individuals have the same concepts of civil obedience and believe the government has to be changed. Although, Martin Luther
"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." Martin Luther King's words, which just correspond with the above assertion, perfectly tell us what to do in face of laws, either just or unjust.