Inequalities And Injustice

Inaction during times of injustice can be best depicted by Desmond Tutu, a South African social rights activist, “If you are neutral in times of injustice, then you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” Consequently, neutrality is the easier, but not the appropriate thing, morally speaking, and can exacerbate the situation. In addition to how this could worsen an occasion, neutrality can cause adverse effects, being either psychological or physical. Individuals should act in times of inequalities and injustices due to the fact it is the morally correct thing to do, no matter the circumstances. If no action is done then ultimately the evil has overcome the good. Morally speaking, good triumphing evil is the way to go and in the odyssey a

For example, in the 1960’s, discrimination occurred, and this was in no shape or form a fair event. Why should a select group be disfavored based on the color of their skin, appearance, etcetera? Now, people did stand up for these inequalities/injustices, for instance, the most eminent of them all would be Martin Luther King Jr. and his civil rights movement. Rosa Parks was another classic example of standing up for equalities. A second piece of evidence supporting the unfairness argument is the disadvantages/advantages perpetrated by racial inequality. We can see this in a quote from the novel To Kill A Mockingbird, “There’s something in our world that makes men lose their heads- they couldn’t be fair if they treid. In our courts, when it’s a white man’s word against a black man’s word, the white always wins. They’re ugly, but these are the facts of life.” This evidence shows that one side is favored because of whatever aspect, not just color, and an “advantage” is given. Also, this strengthens the need for action whenever we see racial, or whatever, inequality, because it is morally correct, leading back to my central idea in this dichotomy of action or inaction. Inequalities are wicked events and should be accosted, as did several civil rights activists, like Martin Luther King Jr.

For example, as mentioned earlier, Martin Luther King Jr. confronted unfairness and consequently led to the equity of all races. This shows the assistance and the benefit, Luther standing up being the action and equality of races being the benefit. Actions like this one has made the world a better place filled with compassion, instead of bigotry. Another piece of documentation is the actions of Nelson Mandela, the first African-American elected as president in South Africa. Mandela worked to dismantle the apartheid, a policy to segregate races in South Africa. After continuous efforts to have this policy banned, he finally had the apartheid system end and had an equal South Africa. This is another prime example of action and consequently benefit. When assistance in times of injustices/inequalities is provided there are several benefits, as shown through history by the likes of Mandela and Martin Luther. Whether the injustices are mere or grand, action must take place, for the reasons of unfairness, the inverse of good triumphing evil, and assistance can lead to benefits in equity or anything else. These points are a further derivation of my main idea, that individuals should act for it is correct, morally speaking. Next time inequalities or injustices are before you, step in and stand up because it might not be the easy thing, but it is ultimately the right