Lincoln Martin Luther King Henry David Thoreau

¶ … Letter From a Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King, Jr., and "Civil Disobedience" by Henry David Thoreau. Specifically it will explain the reasoning of Thoreau's argument for civil disobedience and his general understanding of our obligation to law. Thoreau did not like too much government, or too many laws, and he felt people had a moral obligation to stand up to unjust laws, just as King did. Both men employed "creative protest" to get their message across to the public and gain support for their ideas and beliefs.

Thoreau believed in the ability of people to make their own decisions, not necessarily because of laws, but because of their own understanding of what is right and wrong. He wrote, "It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right" (Thoreau). Therefore, his understanding of our obligation to laws was to follow them when they made sense, and not follow them when they go against our own moral compass. He believes it is a person's right to rebel when they see tyranny or abuse, and that civil disobedience in those cases is called for, and even welcomed. In fact, he believes it is a person's duty to right wrongs. He writes, "It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong?" (Thoreau). Thoreau was really an early war protester, who gained prominence in the 1960s protesting the Vietnam War. Those protesters, and King too, where just participating in something that had been going on for centuries, civil disobedience in the name of righting wrongs.

There is a saying that "laws are meant to be broken," and maybe some of them are. When you see something that is legal, but you know is not right, you should question the law rather than blindly follow it. To follow a suspicious law is not taking responsibility for standing up for things you know are not right, you have a moral obligation to do that, even today. It seems that King would subscribe to his reasoning, especially since he specifically cited Thoreau and his views in his letter. King and Thoreau were on the same page regarding civil disobedience, and they both ended up in jail because of it. That seems like a bond that would bring together their reasoning and their reaction to that reasoning.

Personally, I think we all have an obligation to uphold the laws and abide by them as much as possible. Most laws, such as traffic laws and burglary laws, are there to protect us and keep us safe from personal or bodily harm. However, that does not mean that there are not laws on the books that are unfair, shoddy, or prejudicial. In those cases, we have just as large an obligation to stand up and speak out about unjust laws, and try to change them, even if it means breaking those laws. If no one speaks out, nothing will change, and conditions will not get better. If no one had spoken out about British tyranny, we might still be a British colony. Laws are the foundation of a civil society, but they bring responsibility, too. It is important to recognize the difference between following the laws, and breaking them for good reason. Laws should not be broken just because they can be broken; they should be broken to make a point, and to gain some alternative that is better.