MLK and Thoreau

Martin Luther King, Jr. and Henry David Thoreau were cardinal very different psyches that lived in two very different times, exclusively each sensation of them contri scarcelyed to history in substantial flairs. In add-on to their work in adding to progressive thought, each universe left bottomland a docu objet dartpowert that expressed revolutionary minds that should be followed by on the whole people. For King, his literary moment in the sun happenitentiaryed amongst the worst of circumstances. He sit down in the city jail in Birmingham, Alabama to pen a brave work that would become known as garner from Birmingham Jail.For Thoreau, his piece was known as Civil Disobedience. The two works came astir(predicate) in response to different events, yet if twain represented an idea that move still be studied today. Both writers took a significant, individual view on whether or not it was alright to use ones scruples to disobey unjust laws. Both men suffer by their positi on that following the law is only the right amour to do if the law is the right thing.In Letters from Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King, Jr. is create verbally material specifically to the leaders of the city of Birmingham. Those men had locked him up for leading a rally for Civil Rights, barely King was not going to be silenced while sitting in jail. In occurrence, his voice rang tinny and clear in his letter. King was not happy with the situation in the Deep South and particularly, in Birmingham. When the leaders of Birmingham heard that King was climax to town, they chastised King and the other outsiders for invading their space. In his letter from the jail, King writes, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here.I am cognizant of the interrelation of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in battle of Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham (King 1963). To King, action had to be taken, even if that was illegal action. For him, it was mu ch more important for a man to let his conscience guide his decisions about the law. After all, it was mans responsibility to decide what law is just and what law is not just. In describing his reasoning for breaking some laws, while obeying other laws, King does not waver. He clearly indicates that a man must let his conscience lead the way when he writes, One may well ask, How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?The answer is found in the fact that thither are two types of laws there are just laws, and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that, An unjust law is no law at all (King 1963). Kings position on the issue is one that may suck in been lambasted by the leaders of that time, but it holds up in historys eyes. To him, laws were only to be followed if they had been written in a way that was right according to man.For Henry David Thoreau, his typography did not come as a result of being locked up, but rather as a commentary on the state o f government and man. He wrote Civil Disobedience in 1849, during a time when some(prenominal) governments around the world were changing. For Thoreau, a major problem existed in the way that people went about following laws. He had little patience for common people that blindly listened to what governments had to say without first implying about those things for themselves.It was his position that this look of blind stimulateance was some(prenominal) irresponsible and downright dangerous for benevolent beings. If they were going to protect themselves against unfair and unjust governments, men had to have a mind of their own. In his work, Thoreau writes, Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right (Thoreau 1849).This single quotation is one tha t basically sums up what he thought about following unjust laws. He was a head by nature, which meant that much of his theory was given with a broad racing shell approach. Still, it does not take much to understand where Thoreau was coming from. He feels it an infrangible waste for man to be given such a dandy brain and a good conscience and not know how to use it for the better. He feels that it is not only the responsibility of man to protect himself from wrongdoing, but to also protect his government from wrongdoing.If a man does not think for himself about the rightness or wrongness of a law, then he is giving up that right and forfeiting that responsibility. Later in his work, Thoreau goes on to write, The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly replete said that a corporation has no conscience but a corporation on conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience (Thoreau, 1849).The viewpoints of these two men a re in accordance on this issue. Though they did not have to go through the same trials and tribulations in their respective lives, both Martin Luther King, Jr. and Henry David Thoreau had to face moral questions in spite of appearance themselves. For King, his mission was one that was laid on his heart to both his attend to his people gain Civil Rights and to protect the nation from falling into a backwards way of thinking.Though Thoreaus viewpoint is taken at a much broader level, he feels the same way about how a man should think. Just because the legal code that was written by men says that something is illegal does not mean that it is wrong. This is the basic dichotomy that each man presents in his argument. Legality and rightness do not always have to coincide, though they sometimes do. Though it is sometimes difficult for human beings to attain around following laws in order to stick strictly to their conscience, this is what both men feel is necessary for the advancement o f society.According to the writings of both men, no greatness or progressive movements can ever be accomplished by men that are willing to blindly accept what they know in their soul is the wrong thing to do. It takes bravery and vertebral column to stand up to the law in defense of the conscience, but this is something that both men had to do at one point during their lives. That obligation is reflected in their writings.