(October 30, 2013 at 9:57 pm)GodsRevolt Wrote: Because if we look at history (and I am not a history buff so please feel free to fill in the details) we see two figures that acted in different ways to the same evil. MLK Jr and Malcolm X
MLK Jr promoted a nonviolent civil disobedience, maybe not complete pacifism but certainly not the same level of harm that his oppressors brought to the people of that time (and the time before).
Malcolm X was another human rights activist, but he promoted "any means necessary" a much more extreme approach.
In my opinion, MLK Jr has the moral high ground here because he kept to a standard higher than his enemies.
What do you think?
I agree, I think MLK Jr definitely had the moral high ground.
Quote:Seriously, I had this thought in my head once where all the good people in the world became complete pacifists and those who meant to do harm started to take over, but they saw that the good people were so good and so passive and forgiving that it changed those who meant harm. Kinda like the Grinch who stole Christmas . . .
The trouble is, what if those that do harm aren't moved by passivity? The moral high ground holds little meaning if all those that have it are 6ft under.
