Attempts to redefine what is right or wrong are numerous in history, albeit rather ineffective. Thus, the question arises as to why it is difficult, if not impossible, to make a clear distinction between just or unjust. It is not feasible because there is no scientific instrument that measures moral conventionalities. Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience, and Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail both stress the need to prioritize one's conscience over the dictates of laws and encourage non-violent resistance. They address their resolution to disobey authority, especially that of political nature, when a social injustice takes place. They also encourage citizens to uphold their constitutional and deep-seated right to protect liberty in the name of
…show more content…
King was not the first to seek equality, but the way he led the movement is what set him apart from his precursors. His ability to work with political figure-heads without the use of violence was revolutionary, and one could even say, ahead of his time. In his letter written while imprisoned in a Birmingham jail, he describes the four steps to a non-violent protest. The first step is the “collection of facts to determine whether injustices exist.” (King 1). This is like Thoreau’s critique of government, in which he accentuates his distrust of political powerhouses. Thoreau was an advocate of minimal governmental intervention because “The government itself […] is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it.” (Thoreau 1). The second step in King’s execution of a successful non-violent protest is negotiation. Negotiation was not a far-fetched possibility as political leaders did meet with King on more than one occasion. In Thoreau’s case, however, the possibility for negotiation was non-existent. He only met a representative of the government “once a year--no more--in the person of its tax-gatherer; this is the only
King was not the first to seek equality, but the way he led the movement is what set him apart from his precursors. His ability to work with political figure-heads without the use of violence was revolutionary, and one could even say, ahead of his time. In his letter written while imprisoned in a Birmingham jail, he describes the four steps to a non-violent protest. The first step is the “collection of facts to determine whether injustices exist.” (King 1). This is like Thoreau’s critique of government, in which he accentuates his distrust of political powerhouses. Thoreau was an advocate of minimal governmental intervention because “The government itself […] is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it.” (Thoreau 1). The second step in King’s execution of a successful non-violent protest is negotiation. Negotiation was not a far-fetched possibility as political leaders did meet with King on more than one occasion. In Thoreau’s case, however, the possibility for negotiation was non-existent. He only met a representative of the government “once a year--no more--in the person of its tax-gatherer; this is the only