Comparing Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther K

Comparing Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther big businessman juniorAny peerless can say that a law is cheating(prenominal) and unjust. However, who is really willing to accept the consequences for going against an unjust law? Is fracture this law really worth the punishment? The government is the one to reconcile 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 King Jr. answered yes to this question and believed that one should speak out against an injustice. They both believed that government had many 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 croak 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 unruffled prote st. If one is going to openly express his ideas of disagreeing with an unjust law, he essential be willing to accept the consequences. Both Martin Luther King Jr. and Thoreau demonstrate 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 indirect request 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...