Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau were both advocates for and against using civil disobedience to inflict change. Civil disobedience is using nonviolent actions to to induce a change in the world. While it is effective in some situation, in others it is just as ineffective as talking to a wall. It is up to the people to decide if change is necessary and if they need to stand up for themselves against the governments or the oppressing parties. How they decide to handle each event is based on different variables. While civil disobedience can be useful, In certain cases it could be the worst choice Although there is debate over whether or not civil disobedience is ever an option in some cases it is the best course of action. In
…show more content…
The difference is the people who decide who chooses which option to go with; do they choose violence or do they choose peace (Thoreau). Not only does it rest on the shoulders of the people protesting, but it also depends on the situation. If the use of peaceful rebellions are just a way to continue an immoral practice -- such as police violence, racism, or to support personal gains -- then perhaps it should not be done. King even admits “But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends (King 293).” The use of any type of force -- whether peaceful or violent -- may not affect the situation or it may even lead to the continuation of wrongful acts. If this was to continue, then perhaps the people who would decide to fight against the immoral actions should find another way to combat it. Another reason that civil disobedience could be used, but probably should not is if every single person were to try and protest each minute issue, then deciding what would be important to change could result in not having any change at all (Thoreau). When a governing body is overtaxed, it has to decide which issues are more timely and which are not. Overstimulating the governing bodies with requests -- while peaceful -- could result in hazardous …show more content…
In the words of Martin Luther King Jr., “ There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair (King 285).” If the people have attempted multiple times to invoke change, but the authorities have not listened, eventually the people will have no choice but to lash out and fight back for their rights. It is like provoking a caged animal -- eventually the animal will have had enough and will attack it’s captor. Another situation in which civil disobedience would not be suitable would be if acting out would do more harm than it would good (Thoreau). This could cause the fragile order of the world to fracture and it could lead to more issues down the road. In any situation, it is the governing bodies that will inevitably decide when and how change takes place. At times, the only way these bodies will realize there is something wrong with the way things are run is through brute force. Once people are tired of years of oppression, they may have no choice but to strike. No one person has infinite patience, but when you stretch a person so far eventually they have to snap (King 285). In a perfect world, there would be no need for anything but discussion on a topic -- no wars or bombings -- just negotiations and compromises. Unfortunately it is the nature of human beings to cause more mayhem and
The difference is the people who decide who chooses which option to go with; do they choose violence or do they choose peace (Thoreau). Not only does it rest on the shoulders of the people protesting, but it also depends on the situation. If the use of peaceful rebellions are just a way to continue an immoral practice -- such as police violence, racism, or to support personal gains -- then perhaps it should not be done. King even admits “But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends (King 293).” The use of any type of force -- whether peaceful or violent -- may not affect the situation or it may even lead to the continuation of wrongful acts. If this was to continue, then perhaps the people who would decide to fight against the immoral actions should find another way to combat it. Another reason that civil disobedience could be used, but probably should not is if every single person were to try and protest each minute issue, then deciding what would be important to change could result in not having any change at all (Thoreau). When a governing body is overtaxed, it has to decide which issues are more timely and which are not. Overstimulating the governing bodies with requests -- while peaceful -- could result in hazardous …show more content…
In the words of Martin Luther King Jr., “ There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair (King 285).” If the people have attempted multiple times to invoke change, but the authorities have not listened, eventually the people will have no choice but to lash out and fight back for their rights. It is like provoking a caged animal -- eventually the animal will have had enough and will attack it’s captor. Another situation in which civil disobedience would not be suitable would be if acting out would do more harm than it would good (Thoreau). This could cause the fragile order of the world to fracture and it could lead to more issues down the road. In any situation, it is the governing bodies that will inevitably decide when and how change takes place. At times, the only way these bodies will realize there is something wrong with the way things are run is through brute force. Once people are tired of years of oppression, they may have no choice but to strike. No one person has infinite patience, but when you stretch a person so far eventually they have to snap (King 285). In a perfect world, there would be no need for anything but discussion on a topic -- no wars or bombings -- just negotiations and compromises. Unfortunately it is the nature of human beings to cause more mayhem and