The Civil Disobedience of Antigone and the Teachings of Martin Luther King Jr.

From ancient monarchs to today's democracy, the order has been maintained through legal regulations. Compliance with these laws is done by severe punishment aimed at reducing personal violence and cheating in society. But when social contracts are inconsistent with the laws accepted by God so that citizens agree to abide by the laws of the country in which they live, a person will support justice and make an unfair decision of that person I will be forced to condemn.

Two concepts of civil disobedience, Martin Luther King Jr. and John Rawls, Martin Luther King's review of the concept of civil disobedience (Martin Luther King Jr.) seems to be a radical extremist However, in the history he has not been portrayed on this subject. The definition of John Rawls' civil disobedience is very passive, so I doubt if he is quietly opposed to this behavior. Martin Luther King Jr. sought civil rights for blacks in the 1960s, but Rawls did not have a specific target group with his "social contract" theory.

It is known as "civil disobedience". One of the most famous citizens opposing extremist activists was Martin Luther King Jr. during the 1960s American civil rights movement. The theory of nonviolence against gold fraud involves a process of promoting a peaceful dialogue to gain understanding while adjusting the differences. But when artificial law attempts to deny the law of God, Kim urges people to use creative tension in the form of disobedience of the people.

The center of American character is a seemingly contradictory phenomenon: America is a legitimate republic, but it has civic disobedience for many years. Martin Luther King, the most famous citizen's disobedience supporter, citizen's disobedience is not lawless, it is designed to adapt aggressive or artificial law to a more sophisticated law, namely natural law or sacred law I think that it is. But as Kim's heritage makes it clear, the theoretical basis for civil disobedience is complicated and the actual impact is problematic. In special circumstances, the free constitutional government's first principle is reasonable, but it poses a threat to the rule of law. Decisions on when the environment will be needed and how citizens do not follow them should be subject to the most prudent and prudent regulations.