Essay/Term paper: Moral force protesting

Essay, term paper, research paper:  History Essays

Moral Force Protesting


Moral force protest has a greater chance to succeed that physical force protest.
Discuss in relation to our contemporary world.

In the modern world today, there is an immense diversity of global issues
which are constantly being dealt with. Moral force protest as well as physical
force protest are used, in hope of achieving a purpose and proving a point. For
both of these acts of protest, there must be a substantial amount of facts and
evidences backing it up. Both protests, no matter how it's done, are in some way
seeking for the support of the "leaders', most of the time, the "leaders' being
the government.
Moral force protest involves logical convincing speeches which are fighting
for a cause within the boundaries of law. It's possible to legally get enough
support for a cause and eventually win by never once using any sort of violence.
In some cases, hunger strikes by the "victims' are also done. Aside from well
constructed speeches and hunger strikes, the refusal to obey certain laws and
the passive resistance, that is, resisting to incoming violence usually from the
government, are other ways to morally protest without any physical violence.
Sometimes due to the refusal to abide to certain laws the supporters may find
abusive, the moral force protest supporters might find themselves confronting
the law, and perhaps even acting illegally. In recent years, certain countries
which hadn't previously given women the right to vote changed their decision by
receiving strong moral force protest; this right was gained, and nowadays in
those countries women possess the right to vote. Physical force wasn't in any
way used in this case.
The opposing way to support some strong cause can be through physical force
protests. This involves violent protests which may harm people purposely.
Destructive attitude from the people supporting a cause by using physical force
is indeed very common. In most cases violence is used in hope of getting
attention and media publicity. Physical force protest, has a very distinctive
difference from moral force protest; one of the most important ones being that,
by violence, these supporters are terrorising the general public, and trying to
get the government to recognise their terrorism, and give in. Moral force
protest is not even remotely linked with terrorism.
Not in any way, do the supporters practising moral force protest adapt to
terrorism like do these physical force supporters. By terrorising the general
public and the government itself, these supporters think they'll create such an
intolerable situation that the government will give in to their extreme and
sometimes unnecessary violence. Now, if any government is prepared to give in
their monopoly of violence over to a group supporting an intelligent and
important cause through physical force protest, the situation is most likely to
deteriorate rapidly. The government's monopoly of violence should constantly
remain intact, under no circumstance should it be put at risk, no matter how
threatening a situation they are facing. Violence should remain their monopoly.
A few examples of physical force protest can be seen in recent IRA bombings;
the purpose of the IRA being to gain independence for Northern Ireland from
Britain. So far, these bombings have proved to be counter productive,
nevertheless, the IRA seem to be relentless. Therefore they continue to
terrorise society and sometimes wound or even kill innocent people.
Although not impossible to answer, the issue of whether which protest is more
successful, moral or physical, it is a very complex and contradiction filled
subject to discuss and come to a logical and correct conclusion to. The
acceptance of either form of protest can be in many ways extremely contradictory.
Due to the sea of information that surrounds this issue, many valid arguments
can be cleverly twisted in order to support or go against either side. While
some people may see their own argument as being absolutely valid and completely
true in favour of moral protest force, someone else can easily turn around that
same argument and use it against moral force protest, and in favour of physical
force protest, still seeing the argument and reasons as a definite truth. After
all, truth is the real state of things, according to each individual.
A reasonable speech clearly justifying any reasons backing up a specific
cause may be a lot more effective than acting upon blatant violence to gain the
needed attention to support a global cause. If the fight for a cause consists of
thoughtful and intelligent reasons, it is likely that the case stated will be
heard attentively; more so than if any kind of physical force was used. Valid
facts and accurate statistics and information that act within the law have a
high chance of achieving their goal due to the fact that there are no
illegalities being used, no crime is committed, no panic should be feared.
Martin Luther King Jr. fought with all his might and power in favour of the
blacks of the United States; never once using force, his speeches and protests
were tremendously well received, and always heard. He is in fact, most
remembered for his "I have a dream" speech, which caused many Americans to stop
and think about the cause being fought. By purely using moral force protest,
Luther King ended racism in the US of A, although there are still some cases of
extreme racism there, Luther King's fight clearly decreased it greatly.
Nevertheless, his fight was hard and long, and in more ways than none,
incredibly successful, therefore very much worth it.
Hunger strikes such as the ones used by the people under the leadership of
Gandhi in India, could prove to be extremely effective if done right. Gandhi was
fighting for the independence of India, he wanted freedom from the English, and
was prepared to do everything he could within the limits of moral force protest.
By refusing to stand for violence, some people under his leadership were
prepared to lay down on the ground and block the way for tanks to pass. In some
ways, this could be considered illegal, and the government has the right to even
arrest them, but then again, they are technically not doing anything wrong by
obstructing the path for these tanks to come; or more innocently put, by simply
lying on the street.
The refusal to obey the law can be considered illegal, but to a certain
extent, some laws for being blatantly abusive to the general public, can and
probably will be ignored by some people, understandably so.
Physics force protest has been recently used in Israel and in the UK. The
Arabs with their "suicide bombers' are killing needlessly and coldly to show
their discontent with the peace process started by the Israelis. Violence to
show one's discontent in the way a country is going about trying to bring peace,
is undoubtfully ironic and almost unexplainable. By destroying the human race
and trying to terrorise the Israelis, the Arabs aren't gaining anything at all,
they're simply gaining publicity which shouldn't be given to them in the fist
place, for their acts are simply monstrous.
The IRA is also a very good example of supporters fighting for a strong and
just cause by means of violence. The cause the IRA are constantly fighting for
is actually one that could indeed be expressed in moral force protest and
perhaps maybe even justified. By turning to violence, the IRA as well as the
Arabs are immediately ruling out any possibilities of winning their causes. They
are, in the long run, doomed to failure.
Today's world has enough violence and terrorism surrounding its environment
to even consider using any sort of inadequate violence to fight for a cause, no
matter how important. When so many progress can be acquired by simply using
one's intelligence and logic and supporting a cause following moral force
protest, why should anyone even stop to consider opting for useless and wasteful
violence is completely beyond me. No government will ever give in to violence
used in order to gain popularity and create havoc for any global issue. The
quest to terrorise their way through, by any supporters using physical force
protest, is in fact, counter productive, for it's never actually proven to have
worked. Moral force protest can usually be very effective and successful. It
should be strongly considered, specially since we are now living in a time when
violence seems intent on destroying us. Keep the peace.