The Past and Present of Ethical Cultures - Essay Example

The Past and Present of Ethical Cultures Ethics calls for the distinguishing between what is wrong and what is right in a given society. It is a moral discipline that guides the way that individuals interact within a community. In line with ethics, a just society is characterized by systems that ensure each and every member of the society is treated with equality and justice. This is irrespective of their race, gender, religious affiliation, political views, or any other definitive trait that set them apart from the majority (Redner 2001, 67). However, this has not always been the case since individuals have always been subjected to various forms of indiscrimination based on the aforementioned features. a. Therefore, Martin Luther King finds reason to break laws as long as he believes the laws are unjust according to what his conscience tells him. As such, he was willing to break laws as long as he felt that the laws were unjust to his morality and ethical standing, and by breaking such laws, he felt that that was the highest level of respect for the law altogether (Redner 2001, 191). Therefore, as much as Martin Luther King was expected to respect the laws of the land, he also found it his moral duty to seek justice by breaking any unjust law, thereby finding a reason to be willing to break the law. Martin Luther King’s arguments for being willing to break the law calls for the willing individual to be ready to willingly take up the corresponding penalty and carry it to its maturity. This means that breaking a law does not just end there, but incorporates the ability to be able to be responsible for your actions to the level of going through the penal system should the need arise (Shah 2007, p. 21). Consequently, this highlights the full depth of what willingness to break the law entails. J.A. Boss speculated that no one could rightfully accuse David Duke of being insincere since there were technically no laws that could be used in support of such an accusation. This was during a time when discriminatory laws were the order of the day and most instances of injustice, particularly racial, went unchecked. In such a scenario, it was increasingly difficult to counter such instances, as it would basically necessitate the changing of the constitution and a variety of laws to support a counter accusation. In addition, it would require drumming up the support of a significant number of individuals, and this was just not an easy feat to pull through. Considering the technicalities of such an approach, it is easy to see the difficulties involved, hence showing why it was a difficult task to rightfully accuse David Duke of insincerity. Additionally, the author speculates that the white supremacist could not be rightfully accused due to the relatively high level of influence that he had. The level of influence denotes power, and the higher it is, the more power an individual is deemed to have. Therefore, a highly influential individual as David Duke was increases the difficulty of finding a strong point to challenge him with. Duke always shows a very high level of commitment in whatever he does, and this increases the outcome such that it becomes increasingly difficult to take up a defensive position, especially in light of the conditions presented (Bonhoeffer 2005, p. 117). Therefore, the combination of the highlighted factors meant that rightfully countering David Duke of insincerity was bound to be a tall order. b. Dr. Martin Luther King’s position on the willingness to break rules were based on certain justifications. He had reasons why he felt that certain instances necessitated the breaking of the law and the willingness to face the repercussions in full measure. Therefore, there are indeed justifications upon which Dr. Martin Luther King Jnr. based his arguments on breaking the law willingly. For one, he felt that taking such an action meant that an individual was able to respect his own conscience and fight for what he felt was right (Redner 2001, 221). The world is often characterized by various elements of injustices, and staying put without fighting for one’s rights culminates in a lack of respect for one’s conscience. Therefore, respecting your conscience means that you should be able to work your way through any oppressive laws willingly. In addition, Dr. Martin Luther King Jnr, felt that taking such an action pricks the conscience of the community around you and creates awareness on the existing forms of oppression. This explains the willingness to break the law openly, as this means that the other members of the community will be able to learn from the example set to them and hopefully their conscience will be touched to enable them to also fight for their rights (Bonhoeffer 2005, p. 264). Moreover, being willing to break the law and serve the necessary penalty shows an inherent respect for the law as it highlights the need to express an opinion rather than just feeling discontented with certain aspects of the existing system. Therefore, Martin Luther King justifies the duty to break unjust laws as in itself a show of deep respect and love for the rule of law, particularly by being willing to accept the necessary penalty and hopefully enlighten the entire community. On the other hand, David Duke’s arguments are greatly subjective and fail to consider the interests of the larger humanity. It is largely partisan and results in a certain level of segregation. By being a white supremacist, his views are fundamentally clouded by his need to feel the superiority that entails white supremacism. As such, his arguments are mostly vague and based on a one-sided approach rather than being considerate of the fact that a typical society is made up of different individuals (Michael 1990, p. 167). Therefore, it is increasingly difficult to agree with what David Duke tries to advocate for. His arguments largely point towards a form of life where there is the oppression of one by the other, and this culminates to discrimination of the highest kind. Moreover, this shows insensitivity towards the plight of other members of the society apart from those in your immediate social group. Therefore, this shows that there is basically no point upon which David Duke’s points can be sanely considered for agreement. In a nutshell, David Duke’s views fail to capture the very essence of what ethics entails, therefore being largely over fetched in line with white supremacy. From the foregoing, we can infer that ethics in a society may take various forms depending on the perspectives from which different individuals take it. Nonetheless, the core aspect of ethics is to ensure a just and moral society where everyone is treated as honorably as possible. References. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. (2005). Ethics. Texas, TX: Fortress Press. Shah, Ruchir. (2007). Martin Luther King, Jr. New York, NY: EZ Comics – Historical Comic. Michael, Zatarain. (1990). David Duke, Evolution of a Klansman. Massachusetts, MA: Pelican Publishing. Redner, Harry. (2001). Ethical Life: The Past and Present of Ethical Cultures. Indianapolis, IN: Rowman & Littlefield. Read More