Sophocles’ play Antigone, and Martin Luther king Jr’s Letter from Birmingham Jail analyze the underlying truth concerning their moral situations tied in with the legal systems of their times. Antigone was faced with whether to follow her heart and go against her very own uncle, while King himself did not face any personal dilemmas but was providing the intended audience a choice, either to side with his methods or fall in to the power of their faulty legal system. In this paper, I will argue how both pieces face different moral and legal dilemmas in their own unique way which ultimately questions the jurisdictions set forth by those in power. Does law reflect morality? In this short play, Antigone is faced with the choice to either bury Polynecies
“Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals” (King 13) exemplifies the way in which King uses someone else whom is more trustworthy in the eyes of the clergymen to describe his argument. This piece is used by King to explain how groups of higher status do not give up their privileged rights, even when they should; this furthers King’s argument that his demonstrations were in fact necessary for progress. “We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal’ and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was ‘illegal’” (King 23) is also an example in which King
At the dawn of the 1770s, American colonial resentment of the British Parliament in London had been steadily increasing for some time. Retaliating in 1766, Parliament issued the Declaratory Act which repealed most taxes except issued a reinforcement of Parliament’s supremacy. In a fascinating exchange, we see that the Parliament identifies and responds to the colonists main claim; Parliament had no right to directly tax colonists who had no representation in Parliament itself. By asserting Parliamentary supremacy while simultaneously repealing the Stamp Act and scaling back the Sugar Act, Parliament essentially established the hill it would die on, that being its legitimacy. With the stage set for colonial conflict in the 1770s, all but one
Absolute monarchies had all the power in Europe. Their kingdoms were powerful and accomplished. Although absolute monarchies empowered and enriched their kingdoms, they were still largely detrimental because of King Louis XIV of France, debt, Frederick the Great’s seizure of Silesia, and the city of St. Petersburg. King Louis XIV of France was an absolute monarch.
“The accumulation of all powers..in the same hands, whether of one or many (is) the very definition of tyranny.” (James Madison, Federalist Paper #47, 1788) ( Background Essay) This quote explains the reasoning for one of the framers, (B) Separation of Powers. The framers of the constitution were created to prevent tyranny and create a stronger government that would hold the nation together. Tyranny ultimately means harsh, absolute power in the hands of one individual-- like a king or dictator. The constitution guarded against tyranny in 4 ways: (A)Federalism, (B)Separation of Powers, (C)Checks & Balances, and (D)Small State-Large State.
These rights contradicted the absolute power of a monarch because many monarchs would punish their subjects if somehow they would say something they wouldn’t
In the Redeemed Captive Returning to Zion, John Williams was concerned with both cultural and the religious differentiations. Williams was Puritan and viewed foreign religion, Catholicism, as a danger of his viciousness captors. Williams’s captivity was a ruthless journey of constant abuse and pressure to transform him by the Jesuits and his master into the Indian’s culture. He was bought by the French and upon his arrival to St. Francis, Jesuit tried to force him into Catholicism. Williams battle those and wanted to rescue his children and others from the French Catholic beliefs and the violent cultural ways of the Indians.
Once when a baron abandoned his nephew and a dispute broke out, King Louis avoided war tactics in order to prevent the poor from becoming even more overburdened and “out of love for justice and his compassion for the churches and the poor” Louis eventually settled the quarrel in court in a merciful manner (Suger 110). In Suger’s judgement, Louis’ acts of nonviolence in order to retain peace for the churches and poor are appropriate decisions, but he reveals that
Also, how would they get a job to provide for their family without hands? Another example is paragraph 4 of document B. It states, “ … If the rulers do not esteem my words, … If he destroys the law then I have given you, … may the great gods of heaven and earth … inflict a curse … upon his family, his land, his warriors, and his troops.” This is basically saying that if the upcoming king does not agree with some of the laws, that he can’t change them, even if he thinks it’s unfair to his subjects. The next King should be able to tweak the laws a little if he disagrees. Some people may claim that that Kings’ can do whatever they want but, Kings’ should do what is best for the citizens, and punishing them harder than necessary is not going to benefit their kingdom.
When compared to a dictator who has killed thousands of innocent people, it defines that the person being compared has done just as bad or has a similar thought process. This way of thinking creates cognitive dissonance in the clergymen because they may not be ruthless people, but King displays to them the signs that they can be, if the keep at the unjust path.
King Louis XIV used the Baroque style to represent himself as an absolute monarch because the Baroque style makes it possible to portray oneself as mighty, glorious, and magnificent. The biggest way he used this style was in his estate, the palace at Versailles. The palace at Versailles was once a country estate, but over the course of many years, Louis transformed it into a magnificent palace, large enough to house all of the nobility as well as servants to attend to them. Not only was it a palace, but it also contained large forests and artificial lakes. The trees were rooted up and replanted in lines, and the gardens show a deliberate design as well.
This religious aspect to these absolute monarchs caused the people to have respect for their rulers. People thought “Fear God, Honor the King.” (Document 5) It meant that people should have faith in their Kings and fear the course that God has set for them. They believed that monarchs were sent to do the good deeds of god and that using their power for evil was a horrible sin.
Domat wrote “On Social Order and Absolute Monarchy” to defend the king’s powers, and to give a better understanding of the hierarchy type system so ordinary people would accept it. Jean Domat’s life goal was explaining absolutism. Since he was not a king and seen as a regular person, people at his time can get a better understanding of the system when someone like him explains it. He explained that the king was given his power through God and is responsible to no one but God. At first this may not have caught the attention of the people, but when Domat tells that disobeying their king is the same as disobeying God it is the
Shanti Gurung History 101 Final Exam Professor Montague 12/06/2015 1. As some 16th and 17th c. leaders sought to strengthen their control over both the legislative and administrative machinery of their respective kingdoms, others witnessed the destruction of absolutism as their principle governing philosophy. What obstacles did English royalty face in their effort to establish an absolute monarchy in the early decades of the 17th century? (Hint: Remember the tactics monarchs employed to achieve absolutism.)
Prioritization of Social Order (Prompt B) In Voltaire’s book Treatise on Toleration, it is evident that religion has been a cause of demise and strife for several generations. Beginning in the days of Moses and apparent through the case of Jean Calas, the desire for truth and greed for power has been pursued by nearly every religious sect, but in particular Christianity. While freedom of religion was a civil liberty extended by the Roman empire, the bigotry of religious zealots made it imperative to impose limitations. I argue that Voltaire limits religious tolerance to convictions that can evoke harmony because of his high regard of social order.
