Unit 5 Assignment 1: Intercultural Conflict Analysis What I believe the sources of conflict are poor communication, differing values, differing interests, scarce resources, personality clashes, and poor performance. These can ultimately lead to a lot of things depending on the setting. In a work environment, it can lead to someone losing their job. Between individuals, it can lead to a fight or loss of a relationship. If nations are involved, it can lead to imminent war.
This essay will explain and analyze two essays by individuals who express entirely different opinions of civil disobedience. In his essay, “Civil Disobedience: Destroyer of Democracy”, Lewis H. Van Dusen strongly discourages the use of civil disobedience as a means for change. He feels that this act of disobedience directly contradicts our democratic system. The other individual being compared in this essay is Henry David Thoreau; who in his essay, “Civil Disobedience”, supports the act of peacefully challenging or protesting unjust laws. He impugns us to do what is morally right, and to not be afraid to take a stand against injustice.
Andy Eakes 12/11/10 P.4 Mr. Jimenez If you lived in Concord, Massachusetts during the 1830’s and 1840’s you would have definitely heard of Henry David Thoreau, but you wouldn’t have thought as highly of him as we do today. You would’ve most likely thought he was crazy. During Thoreau’s time there was a huge dispute over the American and Mexican border, which led to a war that angered many people. The only problem was that nobody wanted to oppose the government. Everyone kept their thoughts to themselves.
There are words in some of the rulings that maintain the ”ex post facto” and “due process” provisions inherent in our United States Constitution are being violated including and stating “collateral damage”. The legal definition of collateral damage clearly indicates punishment. This is Punishment after the fact and strictly forbidden. In addition they have substituted the word civil proceeding as opposed to “criminal proceeding”. Most of us are not totally ignorant, as courts would like to believe.
Kevin Kuo Prof. McCormick English 1C 12 May 2014 The Imperfect Society: Justifying Civil Disobedience What exactly justifies civil disobedience? Civil disobedience is the refusal to obey laws perceived as unjust by an individual or a group of individuals. It is considered to be a form of nonviolent resistance in order to force amendments to such unjust laws. If plotted on a spectrum representing criminal levels of protest, from pacifist obedience to violent revolution, civil disobedience would land at the midpoint. Although some say that nothing justifies civil disobedience, nevertheless civil disobedience is always justified because of inalienable rights, free will, conscience, and the general will.
Everyone in the world has a distinct and personal perception of what is in their world and how they relate to it. Many people in society see themselves as being very separate to everything else and ones perception of things, acts, events and circumstances gives them a unique view and opinion of such things. Society tends to band together due to having like minded opinions and views as to how one should act and how one should interact in a given society, those who break the norms are considered different. Society has formed stereotypes to describe how a group of people chooses to live their lives in many different specific ways. People judge other people due to their dress, their skin color, the way they talk, their hair style or the music they listen to and gather these individuals into a view called a stereotype.
Antigone knows that by the law of the gods leaving a body uncovered is morally unjust. Martin Luther King addresses this very issue in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” Although it was written 2,000 years later, it speaks to a similar topic, which civil disobedience. “An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law” (King 3). Antigone’s actions follow along with King’s four steps towards civil disobedience although there are differences because of the eras. Antigone responds to Creon’s edict with civil disobedience as King
He was against the Mexican War declared by American Government, as it was unjust to colonize other nations (United States itself was separated from British colonization through revolution). For this misdeed, he was imprisoned for a night. Although the crimes and the length of imprisonment of Thoreau and King were not same, both shared the same motive. Jacobus has pointed out that both Thoreau and King were willing to suffer for their views, especially with punitive laws denying civil rights to all citizens (King, 211). Socrates, a great philosopher in human history, also had followed the same path of breaking unjust laws.
Injustice can divide and unite the people who encounter it. It is incredibly difficult to determine what is just. This is because there is a duality that exists with the notion of justice, or something being just. What one party may consider to be just, may be considered to be unjust by a contrasting group. However, it is almost certain the world issues originate from something that is considered to be unjust.
Unwise, and Untimely? : A Rhetorical Analysis of “Letter from Birmingham Jail” In this passage taken from “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, Martin Luther King Jr. writes in response to white religious leaders’ criticism detailing that the protests in Birmingham were “ ‘unwise and untimely’” (163). However, King was not hindered by their statement, but instead adamantly challenges the religious leaders to reexamine their moral principles. From this passage, King effectively employs rhetorical techniques, such as addressing counterarguments and employing a neutral tone in effort to appeal to ethos, utilizing powerful narrative examples and strong word choices to appeal to pathos, and logical reasons to appeal to logos to persuade the white religious leaders that their non-violent protests were not only reasonable but timely. At the beginning of this passage, King appeals to ethos by addressing their counterargument stipulating that their direct nonviolent protests were “‘unwise and untimely’” (166) using a neutral tone.