The justification of justice has been called into question since the formation of human civilization. Laws have been developed, changed, challenged, and defended as the argument continues for years. Douglas and King argue two different sides of the argument with Douglas claiming that violence can be justified with different circumstances, while King claims that violence is never justified. This essay narrows the view to two of their papers, “Is it Right and Wise to Kill a Kidnapper” and “American Dream”. First, it is important to clarify the difference between just, wise, and the definitions that will be used in this writing. Just is the idea that an action is right and fair according to one side of the party. Wise, on the other hand, is the …show more content…
Martin Luther King Jr. was a prominent figure during the civil rights movement in the 1950s and often supported the idea that violence should never be used. He starts his argument by claiming that we are all interconnected, mutually, and tied to a destination together. He says, “whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” pg. 8. What is the difference between a.. He continues by quoting John Donne, “Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. Therefore, never send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.” pg. 8. What is the difference between a.. This is important for his argument as it ties together two of his ideas, nonviolence is the best fight and that we are all mankind. He continues by explaining why nonviolence is the best form of fighting. According to the King, “It disarms the opponent, it exposes his moral defenses, it weakens his morale and at the same time it works on his conscience.” pg. 10. What is the difference between a'smart' and a'smart'? This is to say that when a person uses nonviolence, the oppressor may start to question whether what they are doing is right. It may cause the person to realize that their actions are harming innocent and