"There is a higher law than civil law- the law of conscience- and that when these laws are in conflict, it is a citizen's duty to obey the voice of God within rather than that of the civil authority without," (Harding 207). As Harding described in his brief explanation of Henry David Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, there are some instances in which it is necessary to disobey a social law. Martin Luther King, Jr., in addition to Thoreau, reasoned that should a civil law be judged unjust, one had a moral obligation not only to himself but also to those around him to disregard that particular law in exchange for a higher one voiced by God.
The idea of challenging an unreasonable law is central to both King, Jr.'s and Thoreau's plights, though each have very distinct characteristics unique to themselves. In King, Jr.'s case, he saw segregation and racial discrimination as mistakes on the part of the government and he set out to make substantial changes to the status quo. In doing so, he acted upon Thoreau's concept that every person retains the right to judge civil laws for decency and credibility. "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws," (Birmingham Jail 82). Should one find the law to be in the best interest of each individual as well as society as a whole, he should abide by it and make every effort to live by its standard. But reversely, should the law be found guilty of evil intentions and causing more harm than good, it is the duty of every person under that law to disregard it and make an attempt "to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support," (Disobedience 6).
As both Thoreau and King, Jr. understood, half-hearted attempts at change were not worth the time nor the effort of the persons involved. "Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it... [continues]
The idea of challenging an unreasonable law is central to both King, Jr.'s and Thoreau's plights, though each have very distinct characteristics unique to themselves. In King, Jr.'s case, he saw segregation and racial discrimination as mistakes on the part of the government and he set out to make substantial changes to the status quo. In doing so, he acted upon Thoreau's concept that every person retains the right to judge civil laws for decency and credibility. "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws," (Birmingham Jail 82). Should one find the law to be in the best interest of each individual as well as society as a whole, he should abide by it and make every effort to live by its standard. But reversely, should the law be found guilty of evil intentions and causing more harm than good, it is the duty of every person under that law to disregard it and make an attempt "to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support," (Disobedience 6).
As both Thoreau and King, Jr. understood, half-hearted attempts at change were not worth the time nor the effort of the persons involved. "Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it... [continues]
Cite This Essay
- APA
-
(2006, 01). Comparisons on the Advocacies of Henry Thoreau & Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.. StudyMode.com. Retrieved 01, 2006, from http://www.studymode.com/essays/Comparisons-Advocacies-Henry-Thoreau-Dr-76361.html
- MLA
-
"Comparisons on the Advocacies of Henry Thoreau & Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr." StudyMode.com. 01 2006. 01 2006 <http://www.studymode.com/essays/Comparisons-Advocacies-Henry-Thoreau-Dr-76361.html>.
- CHICAGO
-
"Comparisons on the Advocacies of Henry Thoreau & Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.." StudyMode.com. 01, 2006. Accessed 01, 2006. http://www.studymode.com/essays/Comparisons-Advocacies-Henry-Thoreau-Dr-76361.html.
