Register to read the introduction…
Thoreau’s essay is also different from King’s because he presents more than one goal. Not only does he describe the government’s unfair laws, but he also teaches his readers how and why to revolt, and tells them to bring an end to the ongoing Mexican War. Despite these differences, both Thoreau and King share strong similar beliefs of morality and justice that are clearly seen throughout the entirety of both essays. Both authors in their respective essays tell the people why and how they should fight for justice. They explain that in order to fight for justice, we must first distinguish between the just and unjust laws. According to King, “A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God” whereas “an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law” (King, 3). Both authors specifically tell us that we must only refuse to follow unjust laws since they deny us of our natural
…show more content…
To prove his reasoning, Thoreau gives an example of the unjust practice of majority voting. He says, “When the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted... to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right,...but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice” (Thoreau, 2). Basically, Thoreau is explaining that in a majority vote, not everyone is treated fairly. Those who are a minority must then forcefully abide by the decisions made by the majority. This, to Thoreau, is injustice that should be fought so that everyone is treated with equality. Also, it has been obviously proven to us by both Thoreau and King that the government will take all the power that it is given. King says that the people should fight for justice to avoid giving the government this additional power. He says he has “earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, non-violent tension which is necessary for growth [of the society]” (King, 2). In other words, the people should simply oppose the government for every unjust law it brings out; otherwise, it will take advantage of its weak people and will eventually usurp all power. King relates this ideology to the injustice towards the African American people. On behalf of himself and his people, King argues that it is necessary to fight for justice because “We (African Americans) have waited more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights” (King, 3). King adds, “When you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of ‘nobodiness’—then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait” (King, 3). King feels that his people cannot afford to wait any longer for their freedom because if they do, their revolt will not be practiced non-violently. He explains, “oppressed people cannot remained oppressed forever. The yearning for
To prove his reasoning, Thoreau gives an example of the unjust practice of majority voting. He says, “When the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted... to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right,...but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice” (Thoreau, 2). Basically, Thoreau is explaining that in a majority vote, not everyone is treated fairly. Those who are a minority must then forcefully abide by the decisions made by the majority. This, to Thoreau, is injustice that should be fought so that everyone is treated with equality. Also, it has been obviously proven to us by both Thoreau and King that the government will take all the power that it is given. King says that the people should fight for justice to avoid giving the government this additional power. He says he has “earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, non-violent tension which is necessary for growth [of the society]” (King, 2). In other words, the people should simply oppose the government for every unjust law it brings out; otherwise, it will take advantage of its weak people and will eventually usurp all power. King relates this ideology to the injustice towards the African American people. On behalf of himself and his people, King argues that it is necessary to fight for justice because “We (African Americans) have waited more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights” (King, 3). King adds, “When you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of ‘nobodiness’—then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait” (King, 3). King feels that his people cannot afford to wait any longer for their freedom because if they do, their revolt will not be practiced non-violently. He explains, “oppressed people cannot remained oppressed forever. The yearning for