Martin Luther King Jr. and the Philosophy of Civil Disobedience in Todays World - Research Paper Example

Martin Luther King Jr. and the Philosophy of Civil Disobedience in Today’s World Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was born in 1929 in Atlanta Georgia to a family of preachers. Dr. King assisted his father at the church, Ebenezer Baptist Church, in Atlanta. At 15 years of age, Dr. King was a student at Morehouse College. He latter studied at Crozer Theological seminary and later proceeded to Boston University where he received his PhD in theology. Dr. King married Coretta Scott while at Boston University and they had four children. Until his assassination in 1968, Dr. King championed civil rights movements and was dedicated to the course of justice and freedom through nonviolent means. There are many ways in which the oppressed deal with their oppression. According Martin Luther king Jr., there are three basic ways through which the oppressed deal with their oppression. These include acquiescence, physical aggression and hatred and nonviolent opposition (Warner and Hilliard 311). When the oppressed resort to use acquiescence, they basically become submissive and acclimatize to oppression, thus becoming accustomed to the oppression (Warner and Hilliard 311). Not all people are willing to break free from oppression. Some individuals usually prefer to stay under oppression. Such people become used to oppressive situations in a way that they give preference to maintaining their slavery status quo than subject themselves to uncertain freedom. People who chose acquiescence as a means of dealing with their oppression are usually engulfed in their suppression that they simply fail to think beyond their current predicament. In such a situation, the oppressed adopts the system of the oppressor and is as wicked as his master. One current example is the case of Syria where Bashar-al-Assad’s administration is tactically scheming to erode the influence of opposition parties and making multitude of Syrians to absolutely depend on the government support and continue living under oppression by the Syrian government. Just like Martin Luther King Jr. acknowledged, no oppressor will ever grow a rational emotion and award his slaves their much desired freedom. As such, this approach is quite immoral and futile way of dealing with oppression. Physical aggression and sheer hatred is the second way through which the oppressed may prefer in dealing with their oppression (Warner and Hilliard 312). Like Martin Luther King Jr. argues, the oppressor is never in a position to grant freedom voluntarily and the oppressed must demand for it. Violent confrontation of oppressive regime has been used by many nations to win their freedom. For example, in 2011, the rebels in Libya resorted to capture and assassinate Muammar Gaddafi over claims of long time oppression of the Libyan people. Great masses rejoiced from his death because they perceived the execution of Gaddafi as the onset of their freedom. However, violence is not the best way of attaining freedom. It never brings eternal peace, offers no solution to social problems, but only pile many more challenges to the society. Lastly, the oppressed can resort to nonviolent approach to end their repression and achieve their desired freedom (Corlett 32). This approach reconciles acquiescence and physical aggression approaches to obtaining freedom. Nonviolent opposition seeks to find a balance point between the oppressor and the oppressed by eliminating the vices that characterize the current situation and creating friendship between the two (Long 104). It consciously seeks to foster equality among all people. For example, in Lebanon, approximately one-quarter of the country’s population convened in Beirut in 2005 to protest the killing of a famous politician and demanded the termination of the oppressive government led by Syria together with withdrawal of Syrian military. This is the best approach because it tackles the challenges of the oppressed and seeks to make things better for them unlike acquiescence and physical aggression and sheer hatred (Nojeim 225). By saying the “means to an end must be as pure as the end itself,” Martin Luther King Jr. was probably referring to the approach that the oppressed (the Negro) must use to attain their long desired freedom from oppression. Ideally, he appeals to the oppressed multitude not to engage unethical means in fighting for their freedom. Freedom in itself holds clear principle of morality and humane action. As such, Martin Luther King Jr. seemed to be sending a strong message for the oppressed not to use immoral approaches in dealing with their problem of oppression lets the freedom itself becomes tainted. The oppressed must apply moral means to win over their oppressors so as to attain their freedom. They must shun acquiescence and physical aggression and embrace diplomatic approach in their quest for freedom. The forms of protests Martin Luther King Jr. is referring to are probably peaceful demonstrations and boycotts to halt the vices perpetuated by the oppressors against the repressed. However, it is hard to agree with Martin Luther King Jr. on his diplomatic approach. Most often, the oppressor is least willing to let go his slaves for fear of retaliation and losing all the advantages that he experiences through enslaving others. In history, many nations achieved independence not through negations, but physical aggression and hatred towards their oppressors (colonizers). Therefore, in my opinion, the end justifies the means. Oppressed people who really want freedom will use all the available tools and techniques to achieve it. Martin Luther King Jr. distinguished between a just and unjust law. According to him, a just law is that which conform to moral principles and is in harmony with God’s commands while unjust law is that which is in discord with morality (Pollock 68). For example, in Nepal, political parties countered King Gyanendra’s dictatorship by organizing countrywide protests. Pro-democracy mobilizations were organized that included general strike took place in April, 2006, leading to a stop in the daily operation of Kathmandu. Martin Luther King Jr. is a great inspiration and role model. The most powerful lesson that others can learn from him is the essence of morality in whatever fight that we face. He cautions people against using unethical means to achieve independence and is strongly opposed to law that goes against moral principles. From his death, it is clear the oppressors will always do all that they can to eliminate any obstacle in their way so that they can continue ruling against helpless masses of voiceless individuals. Martin Luther King remains in the hearts of many as a hero who worked effortlessly to liberate the oppressed in American society. His actions have motivated many oppressed individuals across the world to pursue freedom using nonviolent means. Martin Luther’s idea of diplomatic approach to ending oppression is the most impressive of all because diplomacy usually focuses on ending atrocities that are imposed on the weak or oppressed in the society. In his “Letter from Birmingham jail”, Martin Luther King Jr. writes: "Why direct action? Why strikes, marches, etc.? Isn't negotiation a better path?" in this line it is clear that Martin Luther King Jr. is for a just course. He challenges the oppressed to seek justice through moral means. He prefers nonviolent action as the best way of negotiating for freedom as opposed to unethical acquiescence and physical aggression. In his own words, nonviolent direct action results into community crisis and creates creative tension. It helps to develop pressure that finally yields the need to negotiate. Generally, Martin Luther King Jr. presents three avenues that the oppressed can use to pursue their course for freedom. He argues that the oppressed can pursue freedom through acquiescence, physical violence or aggression and nonviolent approach. Of all the three approaches, nonviolent direct action is the most preferable means of seeking freedom because it seeks to solve the underlying problems of the oppressed and is less evil like the other two approaches. Works Cited Corlett, J. Angelo. Terrorism: a philosophical analysis. London: Kluwer Academic, 2003.Print. Long, Michael G. Against us, but for us: Martin Luther King, Jr. and the state. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 2002. Print. Nojeim, Michael J. Gandhi and King: the power of nonviolent resistance. Westport (Conn.): Praeger, 2004. Print. Pollock, Joycelyn M. Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2012. Print. Warner, J Sterling and Judith Hilliard. Visions across the Americas: short essays for composition. Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 2010. Print. Read More