King and Cicero
1.) King's view is very similar to that of Henry David Thoreau. Both men feel that it is the duty of the people to disobey laws created by the government if they deem them to be unjust. I also feel that both of them wanted to achieve their goals with nonviolence. They believed that would be the best way to achieve their goal. I do believe that King ready Thoreau's Civil Disobedience to study the ideas of morality and immorality. In doing so, I think it helped King to better understand the goal he was striving for; to have equality for all by just laws made by the government. However, I think one of the major differences between their beliefs was the King still wanted to have a government that ruled over the people. He just wanted one that had fair and just laws for everyone it ruled over. Thoreau, on the other hand, wanted a government that stepped back and governed less. He felt that the best way for the government to rule over its people was to have a more hands off approach.
2.) Cicero's "The Defense of Injustice" talks about what it really means to be just. The two characters in the story argue back and forth about their definition of just. Cicero does this to show us that justice is always changing and their really isn't a definition of it. It is hard for there to be an exact explanation for something when everyone has a different view of it. So, how can we judge when someone is acting just if everyone thinks differently about acting just. As Cicero says that justice is always changing, we can see that in today's society when the government gave women the right to vote or through the civil rights movement. However, Cicero also wants to get the point across that if we acted justly, history would not have changed for the better. Sometimes it takes people acting unjustly to make major change happen. Nevertheless, as we have gotten closer to a definition of justice everyone agrees upon, people will continue to act in the way they best feel is just.
No comments:
Post a Comment