Morality and Immorality: Actions vs Results Essay

Both Martin Luther fag jr. and Niccolo Machiavelli had their own perspectives on what was moral and immoral. office and Machiavelli view what was morality right-hand(a) and how they would use this judg manpowert in government and how it affected deal in everyday life. King fought a moral fight a get h previous(a) ofst what was described as immoral laws to oppress blacks during an era of segregation in the United States. He believes that sometime it is moral to take proceeding against immoral laws to get the results he and others that fought alongside him desired.Machiavelli as a Ruler, during a time when his country was seismal and constant political in-fighting, believed it was better to be feared than loved, and he took the immoral put to death of oppression to gain respect morally from his followers as a result. Machiavelli was a believer of the art of war to gain power, while King believed power was achieved in non-violence. In Letter from Birmingham Jail, King came to Bi rmingham for what he believed to be crimes against a race of people as in practicedice. Injustice anyplace is a threat to justice everywhere (482).Practicing what he preached, King unprovoking action still landed him in jail. Kings peaceable campaigns consist of four basic steps to accomplish sometime undoable goals. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and harbor a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is oblige to confront the issue (483). Protesting and marches was organized because the people that were subject to dirty laws knew that taking their fight before a judge in a court room did not stand a chance.These were the very people that compulsion to keep blacks oppressed. We know through painful experience that independence is never voluntarily given by the oppressor it must be demanded by the oppressed (484). King had specific actions for desired results against immoral unjust laws, but fought back morally by obeying law ful constitution rights. My findings from The Prince, Machiavelli can be described as cunning, evil, and violent.Heavily influenced by pre-Christian political hilosophy, Machiavelli believes violence could gain him respect through fear and intimidation which a leader assume to have what he called virtue and prudence. Machiavelli claims Moses killed his own people to enforce his get out and would have not been unable to do so if he was not armed. The chief foundations of all states, new as wholesome as old or composite, are good laws and good arms and as on that point cannot be good laws where the state is not well armed, it follows that where they are well armed they have good laws (Machiavelli).Machiavelli was cleaver in that he dumb the art of providing for his people to ensure they are cherish and content, in move he demand honor and respect from them. He believe, A keen-witted prince should follow similar methods and never remain idle in quiet times, but industriously ma ke good use of them, so that when spate changes she may find him prepared to resist her blows, and to prevail in sorrow (523).Machiavelli actions to use violence as a power of persuading results to how one want to appear to be seen, whether it be better to be loved to a greater extent than feared, or feared more than loved (526). Inaction can be just as dangerous as taking action, when the results are just as detrimental. Action in the moral sense will reveal results with promises of hope. King led by example, stressed nonviolence through his call for sit-ins and marches. He wanted to end segregation in public life and in job discrimination.Machiavelli dictated his ideas and how a leader should guide. He believe to protect yourself from an attack is to attack others. King and Machiavelli had incompatible opinions on how to take action on issues. Their philosophy was similar but their thought process was different in that, Kings theory was to accomplish change through nonviolence and Machiavelli thoughts was to use deception and second guessing to his advantage. Although both men differ in practices their action was to establish security, love, and honor among men.