Martin Luther King's Views On Nonviolent Courses Of Action
Nonviolent Courses of Action When MLK talks about the “end” I believe he is talking about a conclusion to any situation. Whether it is death or the resolution of a conflict, the end can either be good or bad. In one of King’s action programs should always be nonviolent, in turn leading to a just and pure endings. When we take war for example, the end is undeniably going to end with the loss of soldiers and innocent people fighting for their countries, but had the countries taken the nonviolent approach, then many lives are saved. Take the current War on Iraq for example, 4500 lives would be saved, and over 32,000 wounded wouldn’t be. I know that sounds farfetched and unfair to make that statement but it is the ugly truth. War is a prime
…show more content…
Niccolo Machiavelli dictates his ideas of a great leader, and how a leader should guide his people. King offers ideas to people to better society through nonviolent courses of action. Both do seem to meet eye to eye when it comes to being merciful and not cruel towards people. The one thing that I greatly admire is Martin Luther’s individuality, he is not afraid to speak up for himself and stand up for his rights, and most importantly speak his mind. That is a big difference between the two writers; Machiavelli tries to learn from the accomplishments and mistakes from past leaders such as Cesar Borgia, Alexander, Scipio, Cyprus, etc who were all mentioned in The Qualities of the Prince. MLK becomes a leader from his truth, courage, and personal experience rather than others experiences. King distinguishes himself from the others because he was so brave and modest and didn’t ask for anything in return for trying to help the movement of racially equality. Martin Luther King’s view is more impractical when the two ideas are compared but then again, I personally agree with King’s point of nonviolent demands that will hopefully and eventually become a pure ending. If life was easy as MLK makes it sound, and if these ideas were actually implemented then we, for the most part, would live
Niccolo Machiavelli dictates his ideas of a great leader, and how a leader should guide his people. King offers ideas to people to better society through nonviolent courses of action. Both do seem to meet eye to eye when it comes to being merciful and not cruel towards people. The one thing that I greatly admire is Martin Luther’s individuality, he is not afraid to speak up for himself and stand up for his rights, and most importantly speak his mind. That is a big difference between the two writers; Machiavelli tries to learn from the accomplishments and mistakes from past leaders such as Cesar Borgia, Alexander, Scipio, Cyprus, etc who were all mentioned in The Qualities of the Prince. MLK becomes a leader from his truth, courage, and personal experience rather than others experiences. King distinguishes himself from the others because he was so brave and modest and didn’t ask for anything in return for trying to help the movement of racially equality. Martin Luther King’s view is more impractical when the two ideas are compared but then again, I personally agree with King’s point of nonviolent demands that will hopefully and eventually become a pure ending. If life was easy as MLK makes it sound, and if these ideas were actually implemented then we, for the most part, would live