Civil disobedience is defined as members of a community choosing to actively disobey laws in protest of a cause. As proponents of civil disobedience, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi advocated for those following their causes to complete acts disregarding unjust laws put in place to draw attention to their separate causes. This method of fighting for a cause emphasizes understanding of the necessity for change, that people are actively defying the law to draw attention to the unfair systems in place. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. used this to promote his movement of racial equality as compared with Gandhi’s movement for the separation of India from Britain. Both of their similar philosophies resulted in a degree of success, “the peaceful
…show more content…
Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi are constantly hailed as the world’s examples of peaceful protest, the two achieving opposite goals with equal success without unnecessary violence. The two shared similarities of being strongly rooted in religion but in opposite manners. Gandhi’s methods exclusively catered to the religious with many of his ideas crossing a “point at which the humanistic and the religious attitudes cease to be reconcilable” (Orwell, 4). His philosophies rely heavily on the followers aligning with the same religious beliefs that he lived all aspects of his life by. Both men lived religious lives with Dr. King “being the son, the grandson and the great-grandson of preachers” (King) and Gandhi living an ascetic life completely governed by his religious beliefs. Gandhi’s philosophies take religion to an extreme level and he had been known to be “he was willing to let his wife or a child die rather than administer the animal food prescribed by the doctor…[but] always gave the patient the choice of staying alive at the price of committing a sin” (Orwell, 4). Dissimilar to Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. did not base his arguments in religion but used them as support to expand on the importance of his philosophies and make them more relatable to his audience. He uses religious anecdotes to help ground his stance into the system of morality, Christianity, that those he is appealing to hold so dear. As well, Dr. King describes issues he has with the way his …show more content…
Both Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi provided explicit instructions in their writings for the way to complete their goal. These instructions differed in that Gandhi’s outlined a specific way of life that one should follow where Dr. King’s outlined a process followed leading up to direct action and understanding the meaning behind the actions. Gandhi taught four rules “he considered indispensable if one wanted to serve either God or humanity” (Orwell, 3) consisting of limiting consumption of animal products and a completely vegetarian diet, no alcohol, tobacco, or spices on food, no sexual intercourse, and no close friendships. He believed that by following these rules one is better able to love God and humanity as a whole thus being able to “[defeat] the enemy without hurting him and without feeling, or arousing hatred” (Orwell, 5). Dr. King, on the other hand, outlined “four basic steps [in non-violent campaigns]: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exists; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action” (King). These steps allowed participants to fully understand and accept their stances on their actions as well as come to terms with the potential
Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi are constantly hailed as the world’s examples of peaceful protest, the two achieving opposite goals with equal success without unnecessary violence. The two shared similarities of being strongly rooted in religion but in opposite manners. Gandhi’s methods exclusively catered to the religious with many of his ideas crossing a “point at which the humanistic and the religious attitudes cease to be reconcilable” (Orwell, 4). His philosophies rely heavily on the followers aligning with the same religious beliefs that he lived all aspects of his life by. Both men lived religious lives with Dr. King “being the son, the grandson and the great-grandson of preachers” (King) and Gandhi living an ascetic life completely governed by his religious beliefs. Gandhi’s philosophies take religion to an extreme level and he had been known to be “he was willing to let his wife or a child die rather than administer the animal food prescribed by the doctor…[but] always gave the patient the choice of staying alive at the price of committing a sin” (Orwell, 4). Dissimilar to Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. did not base his arguments in religion but used them as support to expand on the importance of his philosophies and make them more relatable to his audience. He uses religious anecdotes to help ground his stance into the system of morality, Christianity, that those he is appealing to hold so dear. As well, Dr. King describes issues he has with the way his …show more content…
Both Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi provided explicit instructions in their writings for the way to complete their goal. These instructions differed in that Gandhi’s outlined a specific way of life that one should follow where Dr. King’s outlined a process followed leading up to direct action and understanding the meaning behind the actions. Gandhi taught four rules “he considered indispensable if one wanted to serve either God or humanity” (Orwell, 3) consisting of limiting consumption of animal products and a completely vegetarian diet, no alcohol, tobacco, or spices on food, no sexual intercourse, and no close friendships. He believed that by following these rules one is better able to love God and humanity as a whole thus being able to “[defeat] the enemy without hurting him and without feeling, or arousing hatred” (Orwell, 5). Dr. King, on the other hand, outlined “four basic steps [in non-violent campaigns]: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exists; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action” (King). These steps allowed participants to fully understand and accept their stances on their actions as well as come to terms with the potential