King Vs. Thoreau Essay, Research Paper

King vs. Thoreau

By acting civil but disobedient you are able to protest things you don?t

think are fair, non-violently. Henry David Thoreau is one of the most important

literary figures of the nineteenth century. Thoreau?s essay ?Civil Disobedience,?

which was written as a speech, has been used by many great thinkers such as

Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Ghandi as a map to fight against injustice.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a pastor that headed the Civil Rights movement.

He was a gifted speaker and a powerful writer whose philosophy was non-violent

but direct action. Dr.King?s strategy was to have sit-ins, boycotts, and marches.

Dr. King?s ?Letter from Birmingham Jail? was based on the principles of

Thoreau?s ?Civil Disobedience?. Both Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David

Thoreau are exceptional persuasive writers. Even though both writers are writing

on ways to be civil but disobedient, they have opposite ways of convicing you. Dr.

King is religious, gentle and apologetic, focusing on whats good for the group;

while Thoreau is very aggressive and assertive for his own personal hate against

the government.

Both Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau have the same

ideas, but view them differently. Dr. King wants to ultimately raise awareness and

open doors for the better of a group. Thoreau wants more individual rights for

people. Dr. King is explaining his view of conscience:

I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is

unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the

conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the

very highest respect for the law (Martin Luther King, p. 521).

This quote shows Dr. King?s opinion on going to jail. King knows that he was

unjustly put into jail. He accepts going to jail even though he was put in jail

wrongly. The community then knows of the injustice and should pressure the

government. The other thing that happens is King is respecting the law by obeying

it. He is a peaceful man and wants justice, but believes in following the rules

peacefully to get the job done. Thoreau feels that conscience plays a more

personal role.

Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide

right and wrong, but conscience?… 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 subject

afterward (Henry David Thoreau, p.581).

Thoreau is questioning why majorities make the rules. He is questioning

democracy. He?s telling us to question anything we do and why we should give

into the government if we do not agree with a rule. Why should we be individuals

with brains and have thoughts of our own if we are not allowed to think for

ourselves and do what we want? If we believe we are free, why do we have so

many rules? Thoreau believes we should be real to ourselves and live for

ourselves, not the government. King wants to change the laws because they are

morally wrong and Thoreau wants to change the law because he personally

doesn?t like it.

Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King both agree injustice exists.

Thoreau thinks of injustice as friction or tension that can wear the machine down.

King thinks that injustice just exists and tension must be created with direct

action to negotiate with the machine. Thoreau explians,

If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of

government, let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth,-

certainly that machine will wear out…, but if it is of such a nature

that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another , then, I

say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the

machine. (Henry David Thoreau, p.587).

Injustice is a cause of friction, which is brought on by the government.

The government has created something that is working against itself; if the

friction of the injustice is left alone it will continue to grind down the machine.

Once again Thoreau questions if you can wait that long and what are you

personally going to do about the injustice. Thoreau says use your life to stop the

machine. Dr. King explains, ? injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality tied in a single garment of

destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly? (King p.516). If we

allow injustice to affect any one place the government knows they can get away

with it. If people don?t fight injustice the government will continue to allow it

because they know they can get away with it. We are all tied together in a mutual

destiny; we are all in the same boat, what ever affects you affects me. How can

you sit and watch injustice happen, we are all connected; what injustice happens

to me happens to you. Both Thoreau and King are trying to prove the point that

we are our brother?s keeper. We all need to fight injustice to save each other.

Thoreau and King have said what role conscience plays for them and that

injustice exists but you must use your conscience to decide what to do. Now they

discuss just and unjust laws. Thoreau explains,

unjust laws exist: Shall we be content to obey them, or shall we

endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or

shall we transgress them at once. ( Henry David Thoreau, p.586)

Thoreau is acknowledging that unjust laws exist. I think he figured like

the sun rises every morning there will be unjust laws. How you deal with them if

you do not approve of them is the question. Thoreau asks, will you be happy to

just obey the law for as long as it takes to change the law by the government?s

rules?Do you want immediate acton? If you follow the government?s rules it will

take a very long time to appeal the unjust law in court and they still may not

change the law. Can you wait that long?Or, should you take drastic direct action

to be heard at once. Are you willing to be arrested? Can you handle the

responsibility for your actions, or are you scared. Thoreau is impleying that you

should not wine about something inless you are ready and able to take the

conciquinces. Dr. King explains how he justifies breaking some laws and

following others; the fact is there are simply two types of laws. Dr. King explains

there are, just and unjust laws,

One has not only a legal, but moral responsibility to obey just laws.

Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. A just

law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of

God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.

To put it in the terms of Saint Thomas Aguinas, and unjust law is a

human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Any law that

uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human

personality is unjust. ( Dr. King p.519-520).

King is saying that just laws should be obeyed because they are the law and they

are morally right. Morally right is being or acting in accordance with established

standards of good behavior. So, if a law is legal and good you should fallow it.

People should not follow unjust laws because they are wrong; you owe it to

yourself morally. A just law is one that God would O.K; God is all loving, blind

to any indifference and will forgive. The constitution says that all men are created

equeal; so therefore if the law is not the same to everyone, it is not a just law. If

anyone is dehumanized it is an unjust law. Plain and simple, an unjust law

makes you feel bad about who or what you are . A just law should make you feel

equal and proud to be a human being. While Thoreau focuses on what you might

do about a law, Dr. King focuses on what makes a law just or unjust. Thoreau

knows there are unjust laws; I believe he thinks as long as laws exist there will

always be the possibility of being unjust laws. Thoreau says yes, unjust laws exist

but what are you going to do, just sit there or fight. Dr. King is trying to get in to

the heads of his fellow clergyman that unjust laws are morally wrong. But they

both want to get the point across that you must do something to change unjust

laws because they are wrong and can take your God given freedom away.

Even though both writers are writing on ways to be civil but disobedient, they have opposite

ways of convincing you. Their concepts are similar but their approaches are totally opposite. Dr.

King?s religious and moderate tone are totally different from Thoreau?s intense hatred for

authority, mostly the government. They both want to point a finger at the government. Thoreau

believes the best government is one which governs the least. Dr. King believes the principles of

government are necessary to keep order, but need to live up to ?All men are created equal.? The

underlying meaning that I got from reading both essays was that you should follow your heart

and your conscience against injustice and unjust laws, no matter what approach you choose to

take.

388

“Letter from Birmingham Jail” – Martin Luther King

“Civil Disobedience” – by Thoreau