In our Socratic Seminar the other day, the part I found the most thought provoking was our talk about guilt and who is guilty when it comes to oppression. We talked about how Martin Luther King Jr. says that if you stand idly by and don’t defend yourself (if you are the oppressed) you are just as guilty as your oppressor. Discussing this brought us to think about what ethical responsibility, if any, people have when they disagree with a law or paradigm. This really made me think about two important questions; Does standing idly by make you just as guilty as the person that is enforcing the unjust laws? And, was MLK right in sending judgment upon oppressed people who don’t resist against their oppressors?
I think that Martin Luther King, Jr. a very inspiring figure and someone worth emulating. His ideas are so powerful and strong, but at the same time they are guided by such a morally straight standard that they are hard to live by. He condemns you if you live in injustice committed against you and he condemns you if you fight against that injustice with violence. The only correct option in his opinion is that you use non-violent resistance to try to make your oppressor understand you. Now, I agree with him that violence will never solve anything in the long-term. Violent resistors will never gain the support of uninvolved bystanders or their oppressors because violence creates a defensive and usually equally violent reaction instead of garnering support for a cause. Adversely, the outside public will respect non-violent resistance and will advocate with and for the oppressed. But, I do think that MLK is a little harsh when he condemns the oppressed to the same level as the oppressor if they accept their unjust system. Every second the oppressed speak out, they put their lives in more danger. They are already living in fear, and when they resist, their fear only increases 10 fold and their lives become even more endangered. I don’t think that it is fair to judge people for accepting their situation passively, if by resisting they risk their life.
On the other hand, if you are an outsider, a third party observer, I believe you do have an ethical responsibility to stand up for the oppressed or against a certain law that you find immoral. If you are sitting back living a great life, not being oppressed, and you see a person or group being overpowered or oppressed and you know it is wrong, you have a duty to stand up for those people. I really liked what we talked about in the Socratic Seminar about even if it doesn’t have an impact on you and you think its not your fight, if you don’t resist with them or advocate for them, you are doing a greater injustice to those oppressed people than the oppressors. Unlike the oppressors, you know that it is wrong, but you choose to let it keep happening instead of stopping it. This really had an impact on me because of the whole gay marriage thing. I, personally think it is wrong to keep gay people from marrying and living like everyone else, but that law personally doesn’t impact me in any way, so I never really took an interest in it or talked about it. But after the Socratic Seminar and our readings, I do believe that I need to be an advocate and stop standing by and letting the injustice continue. Not only is it the moral thing to do and will spread justice further and to more people, but also, if I ever become the oppressed, how can I expect anyone to advocate or fight for me, if I never did the same for them? If I don’t take up my ethical responsibility to defend an unjust or immoral law for someone else, I wont have to right to be offended or claim injustice if no one helps me regain my rights, if I never help anyone gain theirs.
No comments:
Post a Comment