Blog 4

Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau:

I believe that Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. were very similar in the fact that they were both willing to take extreme measures to stray away from man on man conflict. For example, both patrons were housed in jail for speaking out against what they believed in. Although Thoreau only stayed a night, King’s message written throughout his work describes what Thoreau was most likely thinking as well. Martin Luther King Jr. also believed that Civil Disobedience was not only necessary, but patriotic. It meant that a person believed so strongly about an unjust law and was still willing to turn towards love instead of hatred. They were able to focus on Civil Rights marches and boycotts, instead of attacking members of the KKK. The patience and obedience that both members of society held during times of inequality and an unjust government would not be achievable in this day of age. However, I do think that MLK Jr.’s ideas and oppositions were much more powerful than that of Thoreau. King had been offended at the time, personally victimized by the clergymen, whereas Thoreau had just in general been offended by President Polk’s tactics within the Mexican-American war. Additionally, MLK stated that engaging in these tactics of Civil Disobedience peacefully was good for the country. He slightly threatened that a war between the African Americans and white Americans would not be a war that would be easily resolved without multiple fatalities. Thoreau didn’t even have any support to back him up. MLK Jr. also explained how he engaged in these actions of Civil Disobedience and yet, actions of violence were still occurring from police brutality and the KKK and the peaceful acts still resided amongst the black community. All in all, Thoreau and King were very similar, but King’s points and tactics were highly supported and activists were more willing to join him in his methods of Civil Disobedience.

This is the letter that Martin Luther King Jr. wrote while doing

his time in the Birmingham jailhouse.

"The Defense of Injustice"

Cicero’s “The Defense of Injustice,” tells the story between two rhetoricians, Laelius and Philus. Through this work, Laelius challenges Philus to argue against justice and in praise of injustice. Each paragraph evokes a new idea on how to look at injustice. However, Cicero’s characteristics of Philus are supposed to make him out to be the Devil’s Advocate. Philus first starts off by stating that a fellow rhetorician, Cameades, and explained how Cameades tore apart many things to get his philosophy students to believe that there was nothing one individual could believe without examination. Philus then continues to rant about how no justice system is ever fair and ever will be. He states that it is a rare occurance and that a justice system so perfect would be unnatural to the world. Philus then continues by telling Laelius how justice has changed over the generations and will continue to change and mold into something different each time. He states, “Laws are not imposed on us by nature, they are imposed on us by the fear of being penalized”.This means that Philus believes that we don’t obey laws because we want to, but because we fear the punishment more than the crime itself. The main point of this writing of Cicero is to evoke fear into the audience. Philus tells the reader that there are alternatives if we don’t believe in what he is attesting to.

1. We can perform injustice and not suffer it ourselves

2. We can both perform it and suffer it, or,

3. We can neither perform it nor suffer it.

Philus explains that this is a sense of wisdom within justice. He justifys that justice says people should not be conquered against their will whereas wisdom explains that the empire cannot grow unless weak people are taken over and conquered by the stronger-willed people. Eventually, the reader reaches the final paragraph of the work and learns Laelius’s point of view. It is at this point in the story where Laelius has had enough with listening to Philus and his incorrect ways. Laelius explains how everything said was false. He states that the true law conforms to reason and anything going against this law would be considered sinful. Laelius concludes by saying that there will always be one natural law and one natural ruler, who is God; He states that if we have a little faith, then we will always have our justice in the end.

Author, Marcus Tullius Cicero was an avid, philosophical writer who composed

many speeches, letters, philosophical dialogues and treatises.