5 replies to this topic

[Just Breathe]

Kirk, you are obligated to do this lol.

I have to write a paper on this question:

WHAT IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE MEANS OF PROTESTING AN UNJUST LAW?

I have to defend either Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's position of non-violence or Malcolm X's position of any means necessary.

I have chosen to side with Dr. King. Now here is where you come in, below are my basic reasons for siding with Dr. King. All you have to do is give me objections to it, telling me why my reasons are flawed. (This shouldn't be hard for many of you for reasons I need not mention )

My reasons:

• By not responding to violence with violence, you gain a stronger sense of self because you do not allow yourself to be overcome by a negative situation.
• By breaking the law in an act of protest you become a hypocrite because you are initially protesting an unjust law...by creating even more injustice. You lose reliability and credibility.
• By gaining a reputation of violence, you are now part of a problematic society, and are no better than your attacker.
• By choosing to reason with you attacker, you perhaps get an insight to that person's character and in doing so, you get connnected to another person, even if it is a negative one. In doing so, you have gained a learning experience, which make you wiser. You learn nothing by punching someone in the face.

It would be nice if you could object to all 4 (but if you only want to object to one, I understand)

Thanks all.
-Sal

[Allen]

I am not sure if #2 really holds as far as a defense of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He, like Ghandi before him was influenced by Henry David Thoreau's essay Civil Disobedience which (if I am remembering correctly) basically says you have a moral obligation to not go along with unjust laws. That doesn't mean that breaking the law in form of violence isn't unjust,the moral decision of right and wrong rests in the individual, not in the current state of the law. This is a pretty rough explanation, and it is a long time since I read about this, the below wikipedia article has some reference to the original essay and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s thoughts on it. Although going back and re-reading your point I may be misreading it somewhat initially, creating more injustice through violence may be valid as a reason to avoid violence if that is what you are trying to say, but the fact that the violence is breaking the law part of it I don't think really matters in this case because of the belief that the individual must make their own moral decisions. I don't know if I am making sense (I am tired and need to get to bed ), I'll try to look back tomorrow if I have time.

http://en.wikipedia....ience_(Thoreau)

[Just Breathe]

Thanks Allen, actually those are my personal reasons, which I am supposed to get objections to, they somehow, even if it is a bit off, have to relate to the side I am defending.

[Kevin]

1. By not responding to violence with violence, you gain a stronger sense of self because you do not allow yourself to be overcome by a negative situation.

Violence in response to violence cannot always be avoided. Take in consideration a self-defense situation. If you simply allow someone to attack you, it could escalate to a state where you are either critically injured or even murdered. Sometimes you have to take on violence to protect yourself as it is a necessary evil to survive; protecting oneself (with violence) is not necessarily demeaning your own morals.

2. By breaking the law in an act of protest you become a hypocrite because you are initially protesting an unjust law...by creating even more injustice. You lose reliability and credibility.
As human beings, we have an unalienable right to speak out against matters. If you have to, by technical terms, "break the law" to support the greater good, then so be it. Comparing protest as a crime to an unjust law is simply unparalleled.

3. By gaining a reputation of violence, you are now part of a problematic society, and are no better than your attacker.
It would certainly depend on the context of this "reputation of violence". If someone becomes known for attacking someone who was attacking them and acted in a manner of protection, that would hardly be classified as "just as bad as the attacker". Yes, they are a member of a problematic society -- a victim who stood and had a response, not a cowering reaction.

4. By choosing to reason with you attacker, you perhaps get an insight to that person's character and in doing so, you get connnected to another person, even if it is a negative one. In doing so, you have gained a learning experience, which make you wiser. You learn nothing by punching someone in the face.
In reality, when is it ever possible to "reason with" one's attacker? If they're punching you in the face, you're going to have to punch them back. They aren't trying to hear you out and they don't want you to understand. They want to hurt you. If you can talk you way out of confrontation then that's great, but compromise isn't always an option.

[Just Breathe]

Thank you so much Kev!

[dalki]

For #2, didn't both Gandhi and King break some laws, only in a non-violent manner? You can break the law violently or non-violently, so if you say breaking the law makes you lower, then both types are guilty. So maybe breaking the law in a peaceful manner is better to try first than doing it violently? Or maybe they're both wrong and immoral.

As for #1 and maybe #4 partly, Gandhi and King both found or thought that if you are using non-violent means to protest and your opponent reacts violently, that causes shame in either the opponent or the larger society, which helps push for change.