In the past moderation has been proven to be the outstanding choice over extremism. Moderation has always worked in the past when handling an issue in society; for example, Martin Luther King‘s stance on civil rights. Martin Luther King had a very passionate nonviolent stance handling discrimination against African Americans. This nonviolent stance was a significant belief in moderation. King’s choice of no violence when retaliating against discrimination played a crucial role in gaining civil rights for African Americans. Such as, King’s sit-ins, which allowed the activists get their beliefs across in a responsible mature manner. In addition, Abraham Lincoln was a successful moderate in history. Lincoln was able to free the slaves due to his moderate approach. Lincoln’s intuition led him to think out all of his plans before acting on them. For example, before he gave his Emancipation Proclamation speech, he thought out all of the outcomes and then acted on his beliefs. Moderates have successfully changed history simply by using their moderate philosophies. Along with moderates, extremists have been in history as well; however, extremists were not as successful as moderates. Extremists have attempted numerous times to achieve a goal but have never succeeded. For example, Malcom X tried to achieve the same end goal as Martin Luther King: to achieve civil rights for African Americans. The big difference between the two activist’s beliefs concerns Malcom X’s stance on physical force. Malcom X’s idea to retaliate with physical force pushed the African Americans’ efforts to gain their rights back – he hurt the cause. Malcolm X did not consider the repercussions of his actions which led him to act on impulse. Another example of extremists failing in history is Adolf Hitler’s efforts to find the perfect race. Adolf Hitler wanted to find the perfect race called the “Aryan Race”. However, Hitler killed anybody that was not in this race. Hitler ended up killing millions of people just to find this race. Hitler is considered an extremist because he killed millions of people and did not think of his actions. Hitler was such an extremist that he killed himself because he did not want to face the aftermath of his actions. Many have attempted to achieve with extremism but, they all ultimately failed. In conclusion, between the two philosophies of moderation and extremism the idea of moderation clearly triumphs over the idea of extremism, and history has proven the success. Moderation will always be the better philosophy when trying to achieve a goal rather than extremism. Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln clearly represent the success of moderation. However, when Hitler and Malcolm X attempted extremism in the past their efforts have failed drastically. Moderation may move slowly, but it gets results.
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
Sohail, K. (2005). Prophets of violence, prophets of peace: Understanding the roots of contemporary political violence. [ebrary book]. Retrieved from https:lrps.wgu.edu/provision/17907583…
- 1554 Words
- 5 Pages
Better Essays -
“The Terrorist Outlaw,” William McGurn argues that “terrorism is irredeemably evil.” Implicit in this claim is the belief that acts of terrorism are never justified.…
- 257 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
Neo-conservatives like Rumsfeld (2002) have argued that ultimately, the ideology of mindless hatred that motivates Muslims to blow up innocent people on buses and trains and fly airliners into buildings full of innocent people in the name of “justice” must be repeatedly denounced by every Western government and must be relentlessly discredited through whatever methods necessary. They believe that people who take part in or support such atrocities, or contend that they are legitimate and that their perpetrators are heroic defenders of Islam do not deserve to have their “grievances” addressed by the civilized…
- 2191 Words
- 9 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Just as we formerly pointed out that "hatred and violence have no sanction in our religious and political traditions," we also point out that such actions as incite to hatred and violence, however technically peaceful those actions may be, have not contributed to the resolution of our local problems. We do not believe that these days of new hope are days when extreme measures are justified in…
- 449 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
The unconscionable tragedy that besieged our nation September 11 has shocked Americans. Indeed, images of the carnage that traveled around the world proved how vulnerable the world is to barbaric terrorism. But as that shock turned into anger, a dangerous mix of emotions began to settle across America. Talk-Radio callers queued on the phone to vent their anger after the attacks. "We need to nuke them all!" said one caller. "Throw all foreigners out of the country," declared another. Television news broadcasts brought in so-called experts to discuss the identity of the perpetrators. "All fingers point to the Arabs," alleged one analyst. "We need to keep our eyes on those Muslims," concluded another. These hateful comments were the backdrop to the fear that swept the Arab and Muslim communities here in the United States. Mosques were fire bombed, Muslim women were harassed and some who "looked like they were from that part of the world" were attacked. Regardless of who is ultimately found to be responsible for these terrorist attacks, no ethnic or religious community should be collectively blamed. Blaming ethnicity and religion as the root of this catastrophe only drags countless more innocents into a cycle of hate. Grouping Muslims or Arabs with terrorists is unjust and prejudiced. Even as the unscrupulous criminals behind this tragedy cloak themselves under a veil of religion, we in the civilized world should distinguish between religious beliefs and murderous terrorists. Indeed, all Muslims are utterly and completely disgusted at any acts of violence carried out in the name of their religion. In fact, such violence contradicts the views, teachings and ideals of Islam and Muslims. Islam expressively forbids such acts of violence. Arabs and Muslims are as afraid of this terrorism as are all Americans. The results of terrorism do not distinguish between…
- 377 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
It is often said that, “Nonviolent” direct action seeks to create such as crisis and fosters such a tension that a community. Which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue.” Martin Luther King Jr.…
- 558 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Throughout history the world has witnessed acts of terrorism motivated by different groups of individuals fighting for a multitude of causes. These individuals have come from various races, religions, and ethnicities. Yet as different as they appear to be, we can still find similarities between them, for instance, groups such as the Tupamaros in Uruguay, the Ku Klux Klan in the United States, and the Irish Republican Army are motivated by vastly different beliefs which they consider a justification for terrorism. However, the underlying concept of these groups, by using acts of terror as a means to an end, is by and large shared by all of them. This paper will evaluate the hypothesis made by Cindy Combs which states, “The forces of oppression that have caused men to rebel have not changed over the centuries; what has changed is the willingness of the oppressed to use previously unthinkable means to achieve their objectives.”1 (Combs, p. 35.). It will also examine the strengths and weaknesses of this statement as it applies to case studies of the groups mentioned above.…
- 1533 Words
- 7 Pages
Powerful Essays -
In his article “Terrorism,” Michael Walzer describes terrorism as the indiscriminate murder of innocent people. He goes on to explain that terrorists have the objective of destroying the morale of a nation and instilling fear within a society by not targeting a specific group of people, but rather, targeting the population as a whole and killing “random” people. Walzer and many like-minded philosophers share the view that terrorism is wrong and is not justified under any circumstances; thus rendering it akin to murder. The preceding view is referred to as the “the dominant view,” as labeled by Lionel K. McPherson, because it is common to a great deal of people – many of who are not philosophers. McPherson attempts to discredit the notion that terrorism is wrong by relating it to modern warfare and showing the ways in which it is better in comparison. After reading the opposing arguments presented by Walzer and McPherson, I will be proving that although terrorism is not as immoral as war, it is still wrong.…
- 2952 Words
- 12 Pages
Powerful Essays -
“The practice of violence, like all action, changes the world, but the most probable change is to a more violent world” (Arendt pg 80). Violence is contagious, like a disease, which will destroy nations and our morals as human beings. Each individual has his or her own definition of violence and when it is acceptable or ethical to use it. Martin Luther King Jr., Walter Benjamin, and Hannah Arendt are among the many that wrote about the different facets of violence, in what cases it is ethical, the role we as individuals play in this violent society and the political aspects behind our violence.…
- 1205 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
The task of a civilized world is not just to cease acts of terrorism but to curb and eliminate dehumanizing hate. We must expand the concept of ‘us’ until it includes every human being and the idea of ‘them’ falls into disuse as an obsolete stereotyping device. This can be achieved only [. . .] by a first-rate education and supportive culture that protects the rights of all people. (Dozier 280)…
- 1709 Words
- 7 Pages
Powerful Essays -
One of the main topics James Surowiecki concentrates on is, “group polarization.” This is when a few members of the small group takes a side on the extreme opposites. Some of the group might be on the extreme yes side, while others are on the extreme no side. Surowiecki touches on the downfalls of group polarization in small groups by saying, “Deliberation does not moderate, but rather radicalizes people’s point of view.” (Surowiecki Page 479)What Surowiecki is saying is that when in a discussion in a small group the topic of deliberation makes people side with an extreme, there really is no middle ground when people make their decisions. Group polarization is so common among small groups there have been…
- 1483 Words
- 6 Pages
Good Essays -
In the past 10 years or so, we have all observed many changes in the way domestic terrorism operates. For instance, left-wing terrorism was overtaken by right-wing extremism as the most dangerous terrorist threat to the United States in the 1990’s. In the last few years, special interest extremism has now surfaced as a serious terrorist threat. With that said, it is widely known that extremist groups are largely involved in activity protected by guarantees in the constitution and utilize rights like free speech and assembly to their own benefit.…
- 633 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
What is hate and extremism exactly? There are many types of hate crimes and extremism. Hate groups are an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a group that represents a race, ethnicity, religion, gender or sexual orientation. Extremism is the holding of extreme political or religious views. What is a hate crime or group? What is extremism? What do they both have to do with each other? What do they have in common? Hate crimes happen in small towns and large cities. They happen in every state in the , North, East,South and West.They involve everything from graffiti to brutal murders. Hate and extremism are common in almost every State. Actually the first hate crime law was passed in 1980, and two decades later, 43 state & the District of Columbia had enacted some form of hate and extremism law. Hate crimes are not separate crimes but they are traditional offences motivated by the offender's bias.…
- 912 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Despite the solid justification for this position, I feel that one can misinterpret this concept of maintaining order and use this as an excuse to commit atrocities in the name of unity. A more modern example of how a careless approach can possibly doom a region into a worse predicament is the Syrian Civil war. Had the Syrian government taken a more cautious approach to quelling the unrest which had initially begun in the southern city of Dara’ a, the regime could have possibly avoided the deaths and displacement of 1/3 of its population. Despite that notion, I stress that this is merely my own observation, which can be subjective and open to discourse. Nevertheless, my disposition pivots closer to the realist point of view, knowing very well the moral implications. I do find it applicable at times to take a harsh approach, but at the same time, being careful to avoid adding fuel to the flame by exemplifying cruelty in the most judicial and bureaucratic manner to maintain legitimacy while at the same time asserting the authority of the…
- 1745 Words
- 7 Pages
Powerful Essays -
But if we want to develop non-violence, it is not enough to be conscious merely of the present events. We should be equally conscious of the prime instincts causing the events. Thus it is necessary in the present context to work for disarmament and banning wars. But it is not enough, for it is only like fighting a fire without discovering its causes. We have to do both things-- fight the fire that is raging and, more importantly, find out the factors that have caused it. Likewise, solving the existing problem of violence and discovering the basic cause of violence are equally necessary. People working in the field of non-violence are much less concerned about the latter and this, according to us, is the biggest impediment to the growth of non-violence.…
- 419 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays