Similarities Between Animal Farm And Martin Luther King

Black or White; Right or Wrong; Innocent or Guilty. These frames inevitably fail to address the intricacy of right and wrong due the constantly shifting circumstances that occur in everyday life. Of course the concepts of good and bad still exist, just not in the clearest of forms as displayed in Animal Farm by George Orwell or the Declaration of Independence. Illustrated in both is a call for an immense shift of power though a more controversial approach. On the other hand, Martin Luther King Junior's “I Have A Dream” speech is famous for promoting change through peaceful means; however, he also explains the colossal obstacles that might well require alternative methods. The bottom line is that change will always be a necessary aspect of society, thereby making any tool to achieve it also necessary. Therefore, the form in which change is reached can be considered ethical even if the means of the change cross the standard lines of morality.

First and foremost, the change must have the ability to justify its means in order to be considered moral.

For instance Old Major, an insightful pig, inspires animals into a violent rebellion by tempting them with the fantasy of “living in a comfort and a dignity that [is] now almost beyond [their] imagining” (Orwell 7). While on a typical day a normal being wouldn’t agree with such violence, the animals saw that the benefits outweighed the risks. Thereby, they considered themselves acting morally when concerning the circumstance. Similarly, Martin Luther King Jr. passionately remarks: “From every mountainside Let freedom ring”. A universal cause such as this one has the ability to validate a more quarrelsome approach due to its expansive outreach to many people. Therefore each circumstance possesses a unique threshold for the extremes which the cause can

support.
Furthermore, a more extensive repertoire of means to achieve change most often proves to be ample in desperate circumstances. For instance, Martin Luther King while optimistic for peace also addresses that “the state of Mississippi [is] a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression”. Limiting the strategies which the cause can use to overcome this “sweltering” in order accommodate a more narrow set of morals, may compromise their ability to be successful. Additionally in the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers frustratingly describe that their “repeated petitions have been answered only by injury” (US 1776). If the means of change has an extreme finite such as using petitions only, it can prohibit the change from ever occurring due to its inability to make a strong statement alone. It wouldn’t matter except that change is one of the only factors which contribute to world progression, and as it remains such it cannot be confined at the expense if its failure.
So if change is crucial, why not use violence exclusively as initially it tends to be more effective? Well, resentment and revenge are probable consequences of violence due to the devastating destruction it is capable of, which can undermine the purpose of the struggle altogether. For example, Martin Luther King Jr acknowledges that in order for his cause to prevail people must “be able to join hands” once the struggle is dissolved. If a path of extreme violence is taken, it’s unlikely that those harmfully affected will show compassion. In consequence, the cause of an utmost importance would have been unsuccessful. Additionally, after the animals in “Animal Farm” had won the farm from the tyrant farmer Jones, men burst onto the land “all carrying sticks, except Jones, who was marching ahead with a gun” (40 Orwell). These men not only sought revenge but Jones, who was personally hurt, was more aggressive demonstrating how violence in this specific case undermined the purpose of the cause for peace. Thus the change did not justify the means and thereby crossed the moral line. When concerning the progression of the world these moral lines should not cost the success of the change but instead stimulate the triumph of that cause.
It’s a given that change will always be necessary as it remains the only way to make progress. This fact provides a shadow in which more unfavorable ways to achieve change can hide. If not, the world would be at a stand still and would eventually slip under into a dark age. There is still a delicate balance though; good and bad are laws which will rule as long as history exists. This constant struggle between these two forces generates a spectrum which events (including their causes) can fall. There's no definite line dividing right and wrong that remains static through time, place, or anything for that matter. The world is dynamic, therefore all the matters which concern it should also be. Black or White or Grey; Right or Wrong or Opinion;Yes or No or Maybe.