Civil Disobedience: Henry David Thoreau and Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

noncompliance to be civil has to be open and nonviolent. Mahatma Gandhi Throughout history philosophers make played a key role in our smart set. Both atomic number 1 David Thoreau and Dr. Martin Luther magnate Jr. brought forth their aver ways of civil disobedience, in their belief that it was imperative to disobey unsporting jurisprudences. Their thoughts manifested from ideas, to theories, and eventu all(prenominal)y lead to our society today. Civil disobedience in a pragmatic way is the constitute of a non-violent move manpowert in order to enforce the change of definite laws to ensure equality for all.Dr. mightiness explained in his quote One who breaks an foul law must do so openly, lovingly, willingly to accept the penalty (220). Nevertheless, on opposite ends of the spectrum, Thoreau implied an aggressive side motivated by his accept personal hate for the government except yet ability employ religion, supported by his charismatic ways of being gentle and ap ologetic. spot King and Thoreau both believed in the use of civil disobedience to bring in change, they went about victimisation civil disobedience in staggeringly distinguishable fashion. As stated by Dr. King in his letter from Birmingham Jail, shabbiness anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere (214). Regarding this issue, King believed that all American communities are connected and that iniquity in unitary fellowship will affect some other communities. Perhaps, one could deem injustice as a disease such as cancer that forms in one area then quickly sp training and eventually discombobulating the entire companionable infrastructure. Dr. King reshaped Americas social issues through a non-violent approaching in distinction to boycotting buses in Montgomery to marching through Selma, King responded to unjust laws with civil disobedience and direct accomplishment.Dr. Kings stance on disadvantage laws came from morality. Primarily using morality as a backbone in his argument, we would agree that it is wrong to foster laws that affect a certain race or group of people. Moreover, our laws are a check of our morals and it sets forth what we know is right and what we know is wrong. Early philosophers often strugg conduct and faced opposition with either the government or social groups. opposite word faced consequences such as confinement, torture, or worse, death, whereas the idea of brutal penalization inflicted fear on the next individual.In his Letter from Birmingham, King compared his label to Birmingham to the Apostle Paul in the Bible, and how he carried the gospel of the lord to the far corners of the Greco-Roman homo (214). King expressed a legitimate concern over the apprehension to break laws elaborating the fact that there are two laws just laws and unjust laws. King stated, In no sense do I aid evading or defying the law (220). Rather more, King agreed that just laws should be followed however unjust laws are to be met with civi l disobedience. What makes a law unjust one might ask? From the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, King explained that any law that degrades human personality is unjust. (219) Segregation gives the segregationist a false sense of superiority and distorts the soul and damages the personality. hindquarters in Dr. Kings time, a series of laws were passed that were the ethos of separate save equal. King rallied in opposition of these laws as still prejudice and unjust, in fact these laws were against morals. Under this doctrine, services, facilities and public accommodations were allowed to be separated by race, on the condition that the quality of each groups public facilities was to remain equal.Signage using the phrases No Negros allowed and whites only distorted our views on race relations. However, King believed this in fact is non equality and it is against our morals. As a result of atomic number 1 David Thoreau using civil disobedience and direct action, Dr. King was motivated by his techniques which lead to a series of events that would lead to the Civil Rights Movement. All men recognize the right of revolution that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to stand firm the government when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable (180).As Thoreau explained in his excerpt from Civil Disobedience, Thoreau used the revolution of 75 as an example of bad government. Thoreau elucidated how the government taxed certain foreign commodities that were brought to its ports. He then began to correlate bad government to a machine and stated how all machines get their rubbing, however, when friction takes over a machine, and oppression and looting are organized, I say let us not have such a machine any longer (180).Thoreau elaborated on this idea that the government is a machine and when evil takes over, let us no longer have such a government. He believed not that a government should exist but at once a better government (178), Thoreau argued tha t power should not be left to the majority, but the moral sense, in fact he head teachered the reader rhetorically intercommunicate Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, make up his conscience to the legislator? (178) Thoreau feels that the conscience plays a personal role.Thoreau questions democracy, and thereupon he advises us to question why we should capitulate to the government if we do not agree with a law? Why would we possess brains and have a conscience of our own if we are not allowed to think for ourselves and do what we want? Thoreau feels we ought to be hearty for ourselves, not the government. Furthermore, he articulated the idea that should we surrender our thoughts, or conscience to the government, or should we pursue a justifiable explanation of the dilemmas that surround us? What is right as opposed to what is wrong is what leads to civil disobedience.Thoreau believed that the idea of pay taxes to support the Mexican-American was an unjus t cause, whereas King strongly disagreed with laws that were prejudice. In Thoreaus reading from his article Civil Disobedience, he argues that government is best which governs not at all (177), which ultimately leads the people to discipline themselves. On the other side King explained how nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community that has refused, is forced to dwell the issue (216).By cause of King being after Thoreaus era, King used Thoreaus Civil Disobedience and direct action to spark a change in society. While both Thoreau and King argued with morality in mind, they both believed injustice exist. Thoreau thinks of injustice as friction or tension that can wear the machine down. King believes that injustice just exists and tension must be created with direct action to do with the machine. I accredit Dr.King in presenting the best argument cod to the audience he reached out to which of course was the populace and his mot ives that captivated his gamey and selfless acts. Furthermore, Dr. King was concerned about injustice towards people establish on their race, religion, or sex whereas Thoreau was motivated by his personal plague for the government. Regardless of how either King or Thoreau used civil disobedience, their contributions led to an admiration for their works and casted a light on unjust laws.