Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
henry david thoreau and martin luther king, jr.'s justification of defying unjust laws contrast
henry david thoreau and martin luther king, jr.'s justification of defying unjust laws contrast
henry david thoreau and martin luther king, jr.'s justification of defying unjust laws contrast
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: henry david thoreau and martin luther king, jr.'s justification of defying unjust laws contrast
Martin Luther King Jr. versus Henry David Thoreau
*Works Cited Not Included
There are times throughout the history of the United States when its citizens have felt the need to revolt against the government. Two such cases occurred during the time of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau. Both men courageously confronted the mighty us government; both spent time in jail as a result of their defiant actions; both men stood for a belief in a better future, and both presented their dreams through non-violent protest and civil disobedience. The similarities in their course of action are undeniable, but each man used different terms on which they based their arguments. Martin Luther King Junior's appeal through the human conscience, and Henry Thoreau's excellent use of patriotism, present similar issues in very dissimilar ways.
King's letter, written while in jail, is in direct response to a letter written by a group of "fellow clergymen". His letter clearly and effectively responds to each of the five examples given by the clergymen. He opens his letter by recognizing that he believes their complaints to be "sincere" and of "genuine goodwill". The respect given to these men in the first few sentences immediately present King as a man of equal standards and beliefs. It also has a subtle and maybe subconscious affect as he asks for the same respect in return. The letter is noticeably divided into 6 major components. The first five sections are in direct response to the letter from the clergymen, and the last is his final plea for justice. He opens each section by conceding to the clergymen, and uses direct quotes from their letter to support is argument. Following this opening, he uses a...
... middle of paper ...
...remely convincing support, and each piece is successful in achieving their goal; but should we follow Thoreau and let the building turmoil lead to revolution? Or should we hearken to King and let it guide us to a better understanding of each other? Through our differences we can find a unity that is present among us all, but who will lead us to that glorious day?
"I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State…"
The idea of challenging an unreasonable law is central to both King, Jr.'s and Thoreau's plights, though each have very distinct characteristics unique to themselves. In King, Jr.'s case, he saw segregation and racial discrimination as mistakes on the part of the government and he set out to make substantial changes to the status quo. In doing so, he acted upon Thoreau's concept that every person retains the right to judge civil laws for decency and credibility. "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws," (Birmingham Jail 82). Should one find the law to be in the best interest of each individual as well as society as a whole, he should abide by it and make every effort to live by its standard. But reversely, should the law be found guilty of evil intentions and causing more harm than good, it is the duty of every person under that law to disregard it and make an attempt "to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support," (Disobedience 6).
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.
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.
on ways to be civil but disobedient, they have opposite ways of convicing you. Dr.
...gining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men.” This shows that he has hope for what could be in the future. It may not happen soon, but it is possible. Another statement from the text; “A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.” This means that for a better state and government there must be a failed and flawed one for a better one to come along. Our civil disobedience is not only a right, but a duty, in opposing injustice.
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 his famous essay, “Letter from Birmingham Jail,’’ Martin Luther King, Jr. cites conscience as a guide to obeying just laws and defying unjust laws. In the same way, Henry David Thoreau wrote in his famous essay, “Civil Disobedience,” that people should do what their conscience tells them and not obey unjust laws. The positions of the two writers are very close; they use a common theme of conscience, and they use a similar rhetorical appeal of ethos.
In “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau stated that government should be expedient and conscientious. He started off his essay with his motto, “That government is best which governs least” and “That government is best which governs not at all.” He meant that we did not need a government that made rules and that the government should let the people do whatever they wanted to do. He believed that government should be expedient, not inexpedient. “Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.” He used a lot of examples to justify the inexpedient government. One of them was the Mexican-American war. “Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure…” It was inexpedient because war was just a tool for a few powerful individuals and did not have consent of the multitude. He believed that the government should help most of the people, not just a few rich people. In addition, the minority rule, in w...
...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…”
In the introductory paragraph, King introduces his reason for writing the letter and details who the audience is to be. He explains that he rarely answers criticisms and gives his reasons for answering this particular one. This grabs the reader's attention in the first three sentences of the letter and establishes the importance of the document, intriguing the reader to keep reading what becomes a gripping and moving letter.
Both Thoreau and Emerson argue that asserting one’s opinions is crucial to attaining a better society. Emerson decries the danger of societal conformity and challenges the reader to “speak what you think now in hard words” in order to remedy it (Emerson 367). Likewise, Thoreau speculates that if “every man make known what kind of government would command his respect” it would be “one step toward obtaining it” (Thoreau 381). With these remarkably similar statements, both transcendentalists appeal to the reader’s patriotism by using language evocative of the agitated and outraged colonial Americans who demanded the people’s voice be heard in government. Although published roughly a half century later, “Self-Reliance” and “Civil Disobedience” mirror the sentiments of famous Revolution-era leaders such as Thomas Paine and Patrick Henry.
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.
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.
This letter was primarily written towards the clergymen, but is viewed by the the entire nation. King was sent to jail for parading around town without a permit. The eight days spent in jail allowed him to develop this letter to refute the clergymen. In his letter, King’s heart and soul was poured into this letter which can be seen through the length and the way he articulated himself towards the issue of segregation and racial injustice.
King makes good use of Aristotle's three argumentative appeals. Though, he does not use strong facts in his logical appeals. This is reasonable, as he was in jail. He did not have any way to get evidence, which would be necessary to provide proof. Nonetheless, this would have made King a much more reliable source. King's letter is mostly an ethical piece. And it has to be, because the letter is a reply to criticisms pointed to King. For whatever reasons, the cultural effects of the letter are great. King used the letter to explain what his logic, reasons, and purposes were.