Skip to main content

MLK Vs. Thoreau



Martin Luther King says that it was his obligation to influence brotherhood and justice wherever needed. Thoreau says that he is obligated to abide by his morals and conscience in more of a personal sense. I say that the two differ based on reactions to injustice. Thoreau wanted changes made for private advantage. He wanted to be allowed to make decisions that pertain to him and what he individually felt was right concerning public matters. I say that King was more concerned about overall justice as is pertained to prejudicism and racism. King felt ordered to spread righteousness to where it was practiced the least. I say that for King it was more of a public justice movement rather than seeking changes just for himself.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plato &. Freud

PLATO QUESTIONS: 1. Consider the issue of what it is we know when we rely on our senses. Is sensory knowledge as unreliable as Plato thinks it is? Personally, I believe that each individual's perception is based on a number of factors. Those factors become how we analyze the things we sense which in fact can be from a faulty point of view.  2. Are we materialistic when we praise sense perception? What are the alternatives to any such materialism arising from overvaluing (or solely valuing) sense experience? In opinion, I believe that our praise of sense perception would be more narcissistic than materialistic. I think it is the cause if lack of conscience knowledge. 3. If we could perceive the world beneath sense experience, what would it be like? I find it hard to answer this question as I can not predict a different reality. I would guess that our perception would rathe be based off of facts and conscience which I believe would create a more j...
Post a Comment
Read more