Ethics of Self Defense vs King's Non Violence

King and Machiavelli

Martin Luther King Jr. expresses his belief that nonviolence requires that the methods used to achieve a goal must be just as ethical as the objective being pursued. In other words, if a person wants to achieve a just and moral end, such as ending racial discrimination, they must use peaceful and ethical means to attain it. It is not a matter of the ends justifying the means, or the means justifying the ends. There must be moral agreement between the two. For example, he could not justify ending discrimination by killing everyone in power and overthrowing the government through violent revolution. The end of discrimination would be good, but the means—violent force—would be considered immoral. Or, nonviolent means could be moral but if the nonviolence is used to keep people in oppression, that is not good either. The means must be morally good, and the end pursued must be morally good. King wanted to use nonviolent protest to achieve the end of racial discrimination.

In short, King believed that the end he sought was a society that treated all individuals with dignity and respect, regardless of their skin color. The means he approved of were peaceful and nonviolent actions, such as civil disobedience, sit-ins, and protests. He emphasized the importance of peaceful demonstrations, even when met with violence, as a means of creating lasting social change. Thus, he wrote in “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” “In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law as the rabid segregationist would do. This would lead to anarchy.” His point was that right change must be pursued by right channels.

I agree with King's belief that the means used to achieve a goal must be as ethical as the ends being sought. However, I am not sure if I believe that violence is always wrong our unjustified. After all, I think that Malcolm X recognized that violence could be called for if one was attacked, i.e., if self-defense were needed. He mounted a force of men and challenged the LAPD at one point by standing his men outside, making sure that they were ready for a fight if the LAPD wanted one. He did not share the same view of nonviolence and passive resistance as the best moral means that King held. I think that violence in self-defense is sometimes necessary because otherwise what happens? A lot of harm can transpire while one is passively resisting. Now, if one were to resort to unjust or unprovoked violence to achieve a just end, then the legitimacy of the objective itself would be called into question. For King, nonviolence is not only a moral imperative but also a practical approach, as peaceful means are more likely to garner support and create lasting change. I think, however, that self-defense is warranted and can be effective and justified as well.

In contrast, Machiavelli in "The Prince" argues that the ends justify the means. He believed that rulers should use whatever means necessary to maintain power, even if those methods were morally questionable. For example, he suggested that rulers should be willing to use deceit, violence, and cruelty to maintain their authority. I disagree with that entirely, as it suggests that good can come from evil or falsehood. In my experience, if one’s foundation is falsehood, so too is the work that one does. One cannot expect to do good work with a foundation that is rooted in evil, in lies, in treachery, and in cruelty.