Extinction Rebellion is an activist group that pushes for change across the globe through nonviolent civil disobedience. Martin Luther King and Thomas Hobbes both believed that rules should be followed, but believed in two different sets of rules. On the one hand, Martin Luther King argued that if you break an unjust law, you must do so willingly and accept the penalty (Birmingham Jail Letter, Page 4). Hobbes, on the other hand, focused on the state of nature and the motive of self-interest in behavior. In this paper, I will first argue that Martin Luther King would think that XR is justified in engaging in activities that involve breaking the law, and second that Hobbes would not think they are justified. Finally, I will side with King and argue that civil disobedience is effective in bringing about real change that people can see and feel.
Martin Luther King believed in doing the right thing even if some laws were broken, as the letter from Birmingham Jail states (Martin Luther King, Letter), you may morally break an unjust law if you make no effort to evade the legal punishment for the unjust law you break. As Extinction Rebellion clearly stated, “We aren’t focussed on traditional systems like petitions or writing to our MPs and more likely to take risks (e.g. arrest jail time).” (XR, Our Strategy) As the group strives to push their movement forward they plan on using civil disobedience as a tool to get their message across. Martin Luther King believed XR is justified in engaging in activities that involve breaking the law, as mentioned they're taking responsibility for their actions, this a key concept from Martin Luther King as he stated “ an individual who breaks a law..willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment ...is, in reality, expressing the highest respect for the law.”(Birmingham Jail Letter, Page 4). Furthermore, I learned Martin Luther King's political activism directly describes what XR is doing. As he believes in Nonviolence and Civil disobedience which is described in XR strategy “At the core of Extinction Rebellion’s philosophy is nonviolent civil disobedience” (XR, Our Strategy). XR’s movements are permissible to Martin Luther King as the activist group strongly believes in taking accountability for their actions as they did in Vancouver, a march down the street which disrupted traffic, the group leader later apologized stating they are sorry for the disruption, but that it's the only way for change (Ctv News Vancouver, Conclusion). As Martin Luther King accepts XR’s methods and condones them from a natural law perspective. The key concept behind the natural law is peace, as the first law is to seek peace and follow it.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Contrastingly, Thomas Hobbes believed that the state of nature is self-interested. In this, Hobbes means that everyone acts only out of self-interest, meaning that the motivation behind an individual's actions is always self-interested (Hobbes, Leviathan). For Hobbes, this is always the case. One does not act for any motive other than to satisfy one’s interests. However, this does not seem to be the motive for the actions of XR. XR conducts civil disobedience as a group and acts for selfless and humanitarian purposes. They work as a unit to combat the World War III era that they believe is already underway (XR, Our Vision). However, Hobbes does not believe that human beings act in such selfless ways. No one acts for the greater good or in a manner that is “self-sacrificial” (XR, Our Vision). Hobbes’ theory does not allow for this in any way. The only motive for action is self-interest, according to Hobbes. XR pursues the interests of their group as a whole, rather than each member’s interests, which is one way XR differs from Hobbes’ thinking. Another interesting thing about Hobbes is that he supports the act of war, and believes that it is inevitable due to the state of nature (Hobbes, Leviathan). This directly opposes the objectives of XR, because, as stated in their mission statement, they wish to avoid war (XR, Our Vision). Finally, according to Hobbes, everyone desires power and self-preservation at the end of the day (Hobbes, Leviathan). This contradicts XR's mission statement, as they declare that they work as a group, as one unit, meaning that no person has more power than another.
Martin Luther King’s thinking supports civil disobedience and pushes for change in a physical, actionable way. He believes in the natural law, and that if an unjust law exists, one must disobey it, but suffer the consequences for doing so. I agree with Martin Luther King’s thinking over Hobbes’ thinking, as Hobbes does not allow for civil disobedience, and has a much more negative view of the state of nature. Firstly, I believe that civil disobedience is effective because it is a step in the right direction for making real change occur when unjust laws are in place. Without actions to raise awareness for a good cause, there will be no change. Without protesting and making a bold statement, people may not believe in what you stand for or see the real issues at hand. I also think that we shouldn’t be able to avoid the consequences of civil disobedience, which is why King’s stance also resonates with me. It wouldn’t make sense for people to just be able to defy laws without having to pay the price for doing so. If this was the case, everyone would defy the laws without consequence, which would be chaotic. However, King addresses this by stating that one must break an unjust law willingly and accept the penalty that comes with doing so. However, Hobbes’ view does not allow for this. Hobbes does not support the efforts of XR in trying to combat the World War III era or the climate crisis. He does not believe people are selfless in this way. In other words, he has a very pessimistic view of human nature and society as a whole. King does not share this idea but attempts to push for change that people can see and recognize. He believes that fighting for a greater cause is good and so do I. Hobbes and King are very different in their views, and I only support King’s views. Not only was King an influential figurehead for the civil rights movement, but his favoritism of natural law is also something that I value and respect.
In conclusion, I have explained why Martin Luther King would justify XR’s activities in breaking the law for the greater good, and why Thomas Hobbes would not justify them. Although both points of view have strengths, I agree with Martin Luther King's philosophical standpoint, as he condones civil disobedience and breaking the law to enact change.
Stuck on your essay?
