Comparing Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther K

Comparing Civil Disobedience by enthalpy David Thoreau and Martin Luther top executive Jr.Any one can say that a faithfulness is unfair and raw. However, who is really willing to accept the consequences for going against an cheating(prenominal) law? Is breaking this law really worth the punishment? The organisation is the one to decide whether a law is reasonable, but what if a member of the public believes that a law is not? Should he rebel against this law? Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther world-beater Jr. answered yes to this question and believed that one should speak proscribed against an injustice. They both believed that government had more flaws. Even though they shared many beliefs in many of the same subjects concerning Civil Disobedience, they had many different views on how the government should work and how the citizen should be treated by society. Both Martin Luther King Jr. and Thoreau believed that one should act out against an unjust law by means of pea ceful knowledge. If one is going to openly express his ideas of disagreeing with an unjust law, he must be willing to accept the consequences. Both Martin Luther King Jr. and Thoreau demonstrated this acceptance of consequences by going to jail without repercussion. This shows that they truly believed in the eradication of such a law that forces them to do something that they do not want to do. Martin Luther King Jr. wanted was arrested for gathering with others to protest peacefully, which the police claimed was unlawful, because they we...