The Kingdom of God

Christ compels us to see God's image in the people whom our society tells us are evil. Moreover, by his example we are called to reject the systems, hierarchies, and religion which depend upon the diminished worth of some to feed the privileges (and stomachs) of others. When we begin to see God's image in all of God's children there ceases to be room for the kinds of exclusionary practices which have haunted our world. 

In the new kingdom, false gods such as racism, militarism, poverty, sexism, homophobia, and others are not required for the Glory of the King. They often are required for the maintenance of our current systems, hierarchies, and religion. Our Kings and Queens, Prime Ministers and Presidents, CEOs and CFOs can only exist in their positions because we believe that some people are capable of determining what is good and right for others, while another, often much larger group of people are incapable of looking after their own affairs. 

We can only acknowledge one lawmaker, and therefore, we can only acknowledge one set of laws. If His law and other 'laws', practices, and beliefs are not in harmony with one another, we are presented with the perfect opportunity to be one with whom our obedience must lie.

I have been born into a world of golden idols whom our Pharisees lead us to worship. For how long will we follow their laws as a derivative of our patriotism, their economic injustices masked by our reliance upon capitalism, and their prejudices based on our worship of false Gods? 

Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.

Leo Tolstoy: What To Do?

I thought I would upload some photographed quotes from Tolstoy's 'What To Do?' which is an incredibly challenging book. I recently finished reading it, and it has massively affected my outlook on the meaning and causes of poverty. I hope you enjoy!

Also, please post your thoughts.

Conversations with Amy Fitzpatrick about Christianity, Anarchism, and Structural Violence

The fifth episode in the 'I Am Instrumental: Peace Podcasts' series is a conversation with a friend of mind, Amy Fitzpatrick. Amy is a speech pathologist who currently lives and works in Perth. Amy believes that 'there's a real strength in nonviolence.' Also in this podcast, hear Amy talk about her views on Christianity, anarchism and violence.

Amy was a facilitator at the Pace E Bene 'Nonviolent Leadership for Interfaith Peacebuilders' course. You can register your interest in participating in this course in 2013 here:http://www.nonviolentinterfaithleadership.org/

'I have a lot of respect for people who stand up for what they believe in without intimidating others'

'As I started to read the Gospels much more closely, I began to realise how important nonviolence was to Jesus'

'I would like to live as simply as I can'

"Conversations with Amy Fitzpatrick about Christianity, Anarchism, and Structural Violence" by iaminstrumental is licensed under a Creative Commons License

Conversations with Carl O'Sullivan about Nonviolence, Christianity, Tolstoy, and more!

I am ecstatic to be releasing the first episode of the first I Am Instrumental podcast series entitled Peace Podcasts.


The first episode in the 'I Am Instrumental: Peace Podcasts' series is with a good friend of mind, Carl O'Sullivan. Carl works for Caritas Australia as the Program Officer for the Australian Indigenous Program. Hear Carl talk about the intersection of his faith and nonviolence, and how we can live nonviolently in a violent world.

Singer and Rawls on International Justice

Compare the conception of international justice held by Peter Singer and John Rawls. Indicate which thinker’s conception is superior and why.

John Rawls and Peter Singer both hold to the view that society should be constructed in an egalitarian manner. In this essay I will explore the differing methodologies which Rawls and Singer use to develop their respective theories of international justice. I will argue that Rawl’s approach has stronger potential if the ‘difference principle’ were to be applied to the international justice sphere. I will also explore Singer’s theory and suggest that as they both stand, Singer provides a more responsible and egalitarian conception of international justice. Throughout this essay, I will work from the assumption that a philosophically consistent, egalitarian and responsible theory is superior to the alternative options.

First, I will briefly describe the core components of Justice as Fairness which is Rawls’ domestic conception of justice. A basic understanding of Rawls’ domestic conception of justice will help us better understand the potential of a Rawls-based conception of international justice. Rawls’ domestic understanding of justice applies primarily to how the ‘basic structure’ of society should be set out and regulated. The term constructivism can be appropriately applied to his theory as he considers justice ‘only as a virtue of social institutions.’[1] The two primary principles that Rawls seeks to fulfill are as follows: (i) an ‘equal right to extensive liberty compatible with a like liberty for all’, and (ii) that ‘inequalities are arbitrary unless it is reasonable to expect that they will work out for everyone’s advantage, and provided the positions and offices to which they attach, or from which they may be gained, are open to all.’[2] It is important to note that the second principle is not utilitarian (average or total) in the sense that disadvantaging the least well-off can be counterbalanced by advantaging the most well-off equal amounts. According to Rawls, if there is an inequality it must benefit all people including the least well-off. This will be referred to as the difference principle.

These principles are what Rawls believes a rational, risk-averse, and self-interested person would choose in the original position. According to Rawls, in the original position ‘no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does any one know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like.’[3] He goes on to state that ‘the principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance.’ Behind the ‘veil of ignorance’ people are unknowing of particular factors which should when applied nullify ‘the accidents of natural endowment and the contingencies of social circumstance as counters in quest for political and economic advantage.’[4]

The aforementioned elements of Rawls’ thinking are to be applied in full to the domestic realm, yet, they are only granted limited applicability by Rawls in the international realm. The difference principle is especially relevant to my later discussion of the potential of a Rawlsian understanding of international justice. Law of Peoples is Rawls’ attempt to extend Justice as Fairness to the international sphere. He endeavors to develop a framework of international justice which is ecumenical, and one which is not partisan to ‘societies whose political institutions and culture are liberal.’ Rawls states that a ‘liberal society must respect other societies organized by comprehensive doctrines, provided that their political and social institutions meet certain conditions that lead the society to adhere to a reasonable law of peoples.’[5] He provides seven principles in regards to international relations which include respect for freedom and independence, equality among persons, rights to self-defense (but not aggression), duty of nonintervention, duty to observe treaties and undertakings, restrictions within war, and a duty to honor human rights.[6] While Rawls does suggest that there ‘should be certain provisions for mutual assistance between peoples in times of famine and drought’, his theory of international justice emphasizes restrictions rather than prescriptions; negative duties of justice rather than positive duties of distributive justice, like his domestic theory.[7]

Peter Singer, unlike Rawls, uses a moralist approach to support his arguments surrounding international justice. These arguments are not tied in with a social contract.[8] His views are broadly utilitarian, although, one could easily accept the argument he gives in Famine, Affluence, and Morality without having a commitment to utilitarianism. Singer begins with the assumption that ‘suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care’ are bad things. His argument then follows that ‘if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.’ [9] The qualifier he uses in the strong version of the principle, ‘without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance’ (my emphasis) is particularly important. [10] Singer is essentially suggesting that we must give foreign aid to the point of marginal utility whereby to give any more resources would sacrifice something which of equal moral worth, either for us or our dependents. Following this principle to its logical conclusions would have radical implications for how many people, especially those of us who reside in richer nations, would have to live in order to be moral.

The principle is most simply articulated by the drowning child example which Singer provides in Famine, Affluence, and Morality. He puts forward the deceptively uncontroversial assertion that ‘if I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out.’ Singer goes on to suggest that the distance between me and the child ‘makes no moral difference.’ Since Singer, like most practical philosophers, subscribes to principles of ‘impartiality, universalisability,’ and ‘equality,’ it seems reasonable to state that distance either makes very little difference or no difference at all in situations where people who have access to vast resources can easily support famine relief in places like Bangladesh. [11] He also refutes the argument that says ‘there are other people either equally or better placed to give money and this therefore exempts me from owing anything to the worlds’ poor.’ While it may be the case that there are people better placed than I to help, it is clear that many of those people have chosen not to address the problem and therefore the conclusion is based upon a hypothetical premise which presumes that the very rich will do all that they can to address poverty. As Singer points out, such an argument is ‘an ideal excuse for inactivity’ which does nothing to address the situation which we currently find ourselves in.[12]

The question regarding which author provides a better framework for dealing with poverty is a difficult one. I will argue that as their respective theories stand, Peter Singer provides a better theory in regards to international justice. However, if John Rawls took his theory of domestic justice as it is outlined in A Theory Of Justice and applied it consistently to the realm of international justice, his theory would be able to address poverty equally, if not better than Singer’s theory. There are two main reasons why Rawls’ theory of international justice is incomplete: (i) he attempts to synthesize liberal tolerance with prescriptive egalitarianism, and (ii) he effectively creates a morality based upon the social contract.

In order to gain ecumenical support, Rawls compromises and waters down many of the logical conclusions that one would reach if they were to apply the ‘veil of ignorance’ hypothetical scenario to shape international governance.  Rawls attempts to be tolerant with societies whose members may have different conceptions of justice than ours, and who may be guided by different kinds of comprehensive doctrines.[13] However, this apparent respect of ‘other societies organized by comprehensive doctrines’ effectively forfeits our social contract with them, meaning that there is no clear burden under the ‘veil of ignorance’ for a rational person to suggest that economic assistance must be given to poor people in illiberal nations. The rational person knows that she will not become a member of an illiberal society under the ‘veil of ignorance’ because the veil does not apply to illiberal societies. This then means that she has no good reason to make allowances for these people unless they will somehow improve her lot, which in many cases, is highly improbable.

The second objection to Rawl’s theory ties in strongly with the first objection. Rawls’ theory of international justice is based on the social contract. While any theory based upon the social contract should be first seen as contractarian rather than moral, it is unavoidable for a theory like Rawls’ to have many moral implications, imperatives, and restrictions. Strictly speaking, it is not immoral to decide under the ‘veil of ignorance’ that there will be a small portion of people who control a great deal of society’s wealth, this should be seen as irrational. However, making a decision under the ‘veil of ignorance’, then changing the decision when the veil is lifted, in favor of one’s self interest, could be seen as immoral. In short, Rawls’ theory has moral implications even though it is based on rationality. The morality drawn from Rawls’ theory could be summed up as ‘do unto others as they do unto me.’ This is unfortunate as any morality that gives an exemptions if other people choose not to follow it is flawed. Effectively, such a morality is dependent on the actions of another person rather than any deeply held conviction.

In Practical Ethics (Second Ed.) Singer argues that wealthy nations should be significantly more generous in their intake of asylum seekers, perhaps up until the point of marginal utility. He creates a scenario similar to the ‘drowning child’ thought experiment which was previously mentioned. Singer asks whether the investors in the hypothetical underground community called Fairhaven should allow non-investing people into their community, allowing them to escape the extreme radiation outside. Members of Fairhaven will have to give up their tennis courts, swimming pools, and their large gymnasium in order to give those outside some form of basic accommodation. Singer presents three options: (i) admit all 10,000 outsiders and lose all the sports and entertainment facilities, (ii) admit only 500 outsiders and lose a quarter of the tennis courts (which only had little use), or (iii) admit no outsiders and therefore accept no costs.[14] I find this to be a compelling argument for a more responsible and egalitarian approach to those fleeing persecution across borders. However, as a utilitarian, Singer is obliged to consider the consequences for all affected parties, which leads to a great deal of moral complexity when this issue could have been a simple matter. In the third edition of Practical Ethics, Singer removed the chapter Insiders and Outsiders, explaining why in the preface. He cites reasons such as the possibility of a ‘racist backlash’ if a country accepts large numbers of refugees as ‘highly relevant’ to the discussion, and no doubt, highly relevant to why he chose to omit this chapter in the third edition of Practical Ethics.[15] I find this argument to be both inconsistent with the Fairhaven hypothetical mentioned above and revealing of the limits of utilitarianism. If ‘racist backlashes’ are of genuine concern for Singer’s theory of international justice, his theory is little more than a Lifeboat Ethic.

As mentioned previously, and as noted by thinkers such as Pogge and Singer, Rawls’ main area of concern is the domestic sphere.[16] It is unfortunate that throughout The Law of Peoples, Rawls continually refers to the benefits of the ‘veil of ignorance’ only being conferred on to the citizen.[17] In a practical application of the ‘veil of ignorance’, as Rawls intends the device to be used, it seems inevitable that one would know that one will become a citizen of a liberal and democratic state, which would in turn justify self-interested and potentially deeply harmful policies towards outsiders. However, this goes against the very intention of the ‘veil of ignorance’ which aims to ‘nullify the effects of specific contingencies which put men at odds and tempt them to exploit social and natural circumstances to their own advantage.’[18] In Carens’ critique of Rawls, he points out that ‘whether one is a citizen of a rich nation or a poor one, whether one is already a citizen of a particular state or an alien who wishes to become a citizen – this is the sort of specific contingency that could set people at odds … We should therefore take a global, not a national view of the original position.’[19] Carens’ approach is ironically more compatible with the ‘veil of ignorance’ than the approach that Rawls himself utilised.

In conclusion, I find Singer’s theory of international justice to be superior to Rawls’, as Rawls intended his theory to be understood. However, if Rawls’ conception of domestic justice were to be applied to the international sphere, it would have the potential to be far more robust that Singer’s. The ‘veil of ignorance’, as it has been critiqued by authors such as Pogge and Carens, could be incredibly useful in the international realm, but only if it is applied with consistency.

---

Bibliography

Carens, Joseph H. “Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders.” The Review of Politics 49, no. 2 (April 1, 1987): 251–273.

Pogge, Thomas W. Realizing Rawls. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press, 1989.

Rawls, John. A theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973.

———. Collected papers. Edited by Samuel Richard Freeman. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999.

———. “Justice as Fairness.” The Philosophical Review 67, no. 2 (April 1, 1958): 164–194.

———. “The Main Idea of the Theory of Justice.” In Ethics, edited by Peter Singer, 362–367. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

Singer, Peter. “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” In World hunger and moral obligation, edited by William Aiken and Hugh LaFollette. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977.

———. Practical Ethics. Second ed. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

———. Practical Ethics. Third ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

[1] John Rawls, “Justice as Fairness,” The Philosophical Review 67, no. 2 (April 1, 1958): 164.

[2] Ibid., 165.

[3] John Rawls, “The Main Idea of the Theory of Justice,” in Ethics, ed. Peter Singer (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 363.

[4] Ibid., 365.

[5] Rawls and Freeman, Collected Papers, 540–541.

John Rawls, Collected papers, ed. Samuel Richard Freeman (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999), 532–531.

[6] Ibid., 540.

[7] Ibid., 540–541.

[8] In using the term ‘moralist’, I do not seek to suggest that Singer has political affiliations with groups who call themselves moralists. Rather, I am pointing out that his theory is directly speaking about what is right and wrong rather than what is rational and irrational.

[9] Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” in World hunger and moral obligation, ed. William Aiken and Hugh LaFollette (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977), 24.

[10] Ibid.

[11] All quoted material in the beginning of this paragraph can be found in: Ibid., 24–25.

[12] Ibid., 25–26.

[13] Rawls, Collected papers, 530.

[14] Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, Second ed. (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

[15] Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, Third ed. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011).

[16] Thomas W Pogge, Realizing Rawls (Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press, 1989), 1–14; Singer, Practical Ethics, 253.

[17] Rawls, Collected papers, 537–541.

[18] John Rawls, A theory of Justice. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973), 136.

[19] Joseph H. Carens, “Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders,” The Review of Politics 49, no. 2 (April 1, 1987): 256.

Real World Justice: a brief analysis of Pogge's thought

Summarize and critically analysis the central argument of Pogge, T. (2005). "Real World Justice." The Journal of Ethics 9(2): 29-53.

Image from http://goo.gl/znLsw

In the article Real World Justice, Thomas Pogge outlines his arguments in regard to moral responsibility for global poverty. Pogge uses pragmatic and ecumenical arguments in order to gain broad support for his conclusions and practical outcomes for the global poor. His main arguments will be addressed in the first part of this paper and critically analysed in the second section.

Pogge attempts to establish potential from a fact, then an ought from potential, rather than going directly from an is to an ought. The potential is connected to a broad sentiment which can loosely be described as Pogge’s ‘could factor’. The first reason why Pogge is interested in the issue is because of the fact that 280 million people have died from poverty in the 15 years leading up to 2004. The second reason he chooses to write about global poverty is because of the potential for this fact to be altered through human agency. Pogge writes that ‘the better-off can improve the circumstances of the worse-off without becoming badly-off themselves.’[1] These motivations for addressing the issue of global poverty provide grounding for the following arguments.

Negative duties to ‘do no harm’ are considered by Pogge to be a ‘very weak assumption.’[2] From this broadly appealing assertion Pogge defines three areas where most citizens of affluent states are complicit in, or beneficiaries of the ‘largest … crime against humanity ever committed’. First, historical injustices such as colonialism have adversely affected development in some countries.[3] Second, the world’s poor are missing out on their share of the world’s natural resources ‘without compensation.’[4] Third, in a broadly consequentialist sense, our shared ‘institutional design’ is not geared to achieve the best human rights outcomes. These three points lead Pogge to believe that citizens of affluent countries owe a debt to the world’s poor. Such a debt could be repaid through a Global Resources Dividend.[5]

Pogge’s arguments based upon negative duties are effective at fulfilling his motivations in addressing the issue. A broad argument which is largely based upon negative duties is vital to the gathering of public support to reform institutions which adversely harm the poor. However, with the clauses that Pogge invokes it would be stretching intellectual honesty to state that his theory is entirely based upon negative duties. Pogge accepts that there is greater duty where there is greater need, and not where necessarily where greater harm has been done.

He has also been criticised for being ‘strangely demanding’ as it appears to be odd that a theory based upon negative duties could be so burdensome.[6] Ci argues that Pogge does not appeal to libertarians from a consequentialist perspective as his theory asks them to do ‘more to combat severe global poverty’, effectively altering the institutional definition of negative and positive duties.[7] To convince others to do more about global poverty is undoubtedly Pogge’s aim in writing this article. In consideration that it will inevitably be very difficult to convert the views of some people that Pogge is attempting to appeal to (such as libertarians), I think Pogge’s work plays a crucial role in the debate surrounding moral obligations to the world’s poor. I find the criticisms of his work valid but limited in scope. Therefore, it is my opinion that Pogge’s argument is reasonable and well supported.

Bibliography

Ci, J. (2010). What negative duties? Which moral universalism? Thomas Pogge and his critics. A. M. Jaggar. Cambridge; Malden, MA, Polity.

Pogge, T. (2005). "Real World Justice." The Journal of Ethics 9(2): 29-53.

---

[1] {Pogge, 2005 #339} p. 37.

[2] {Pogge, 2005 #339} p. 34.

[3] {Pogge, 2005 #339} p. 38.

[4] {Pogge, 2005 #339} p. 40.

[5] {Pogge, 2005 #339} p. 50.

[6] {Ci, 2010 #340} p. 86.

[7] {Ci, 2010 #340} pp. 86-87.

Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement

Martin Luther King meets Malcolm X

Martin Luther King, Jr. was one of the most influential figures in the American civil rights movement. King took a principled approach to his leadership rather than a populist approach. While the movement gave King the opportunity to lead, his leadership style differed greatly from other public leaders of his time. He developed many unpopular public positions including denouncing the Vietnam War and proposing non-violent solutions to various problems in society. King had more enemies and was more controversial than the history books often portray. One of King’s close friend’s believes that ‘those on the right breathe deeply and polish King’s rough edges into a more acceptable and harmless national icon.’[1] This essay explores the difficult and unpopular decisions that King made in order to be philosophically consistent in his leadership. Rather than appeasing the demos, King sought to express his deep conviction about poverty, justice, and racism.

King began his leadership of the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) reluctantly. He had previously refused leadership roles in the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured Peoples (NAACP) citing family and church obligations. In response to the offer of leadership within the MIA, he surprised his colleagues and said, ‘well, if you think I can render some service I will.’[2]  At this stage of his career King had only recently received his PhD in systematic theology, and he had passed up academic jobs to pursue this vocation. King wrote that he was ‘possessed by fear’ that he would not be able to carry it off and was ‘obsessed by a feeling of inadequacy.’[3] Even at this early stage of his career it is noticeable from records of King’s sermons at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church that he did in fact have a strong conscience and articulate expression, priming him for leadership in this area of moral and social change. King, before he received work at Dexter Avenue Baptist, courageously told the congregation at a ‘trial’ sermon that ‘no man should become so involved in his personal ambitions that he forgets that other people exist in the world.’[4]

However acute his moral conscience was, King was by no means responsible for initiating the American civil rights movement. King was effectively thrown into the position of presidency of the MIA as a communal response to the arrest of Mrs Rosa Parks who was charged with ‘refusing to obey orders bus drivers [sic].’[5] She was ordered to give up her seat for a white person yet she refused. King led a mass boycott of the Montgomery bus services in response to the protest of civil disobedience by Rosa Parks.[6] Soon after, King was chosen to be president of the MIA, he fully realised his vocation - standing up for justice, truth, and righteousness.[7] King’s passion and drive for the cause of civil rights in America was unwavering from this point onwards (January 27, 1956, to be precise). Three days later his house was bombed yet still his passion did not subside. To the large crowd of ‘angry black citizens’ King said ‘I want you to love our enemies. Be good to them. Love them and let them know you love them.’[8]

King was able to personify and embody, in this moment, the philosophy and theology that inspired him and the movement which he led. Through his courageous leadership in Montgomery, King proved that he lead on principle rather than popularity, which explains why he later refused to go into public office. The non-violence that King preached would now be responsible for shaping a movement and avoiding a civil war. King decided to wage the war on racism and segregation on moral grounds through non-violent means. King’s moral convictions led him to state: ‘frankly, I am for immediate integration. Segregation is evil, and I cannot, as a minister, condone evil.’[9] This utterance was in a similar vein to another American revolutionary, William Lloyd Garrison, who in 1831 decided that ‘it was immoral to favour the continuance for an hour of a system which is morally wrong’ and therefore did not support the gradual improvement to an evil system.[10] Anything else would be a compromise.

Malcolm X’s leadership of the black Muslims has proved to be one of the most interesting points of comparison to King’s leadership role in the movement. Although both leaders sought similar ends, they attempted to achieve those ends through means which were diametrical opposed.[11] Malcolm X sought unification on the understanding that black Americans have a common enemy – white men. He told his followers to ‘put the white man out of our meetings, number one’, so that blacks could present a unified front. Malcolm X, in a television interview described King as ‘the best weapon that white man, who wants to brutalize negroes, has ever gotten [sic] in this country, because he is setting up a situation where, when white man wants to attack Negroes, they can’t defend themselves.’[12] In a telegram to King, Malcolm X offered armed troops to aid his struggle in attempt to sway King from his commitment to non-violence. The telegram concluded: ‘the day of turning the other cheek to those brutes is over.’[13] This drew the key philosophical distinction between the two leaders of the civil rights movement.

In Message To Grassroots Malcolm X questioned: ‘How can you justify being nonviolent in Mississippi and Alabama, when your churches are being bombed, and your little girls are being murdered, and at the same time you’re going to [sic] violent with Hitler, and Tojo, and somebody else that you don’t even know?’ Malcolm X used the international analogy to point out the inconsistency of King’s position.[14] He had ran out of patience for King’s nonviolent direct action. Malcolm X summed up: ‘if violence is wrong in America, violence is wrong abroad’.[15] In saying this, Malcolm X used international violence to justify domestic violence. King would later speak out against the war in Vietnam and use domestic nonviolence to justify international nonviolence.

King disagreed with the means that Malcolm X sought to utilise to achieve higher status of black Americans. King believed that the value of an action should be found in the action itself, not in the outcome, writing that ‘immoral means cannot bring about moral ends’.[16] King describes non-violent resistance as ‘the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and human dignity’, arguing that it ‘weakens his morale’ and ‘works on his conscience.’[17] For King, non-violence was the appropriate moral means to achieve the sought-after end. This philosophical belief was deeply inspired by King’s strong religious convictions and also by his visit to India. In India, King learnt about the movement which Gandhi led. After this visit King was even more confident that the struggle could only be won through non-violent means. One of King’s friends goes so far as to say that ‘Gandhi and Dr King were cut from the same cloth, long-lost brothers from different mothers.’[18] The means that King employed to pursue his passion are crucial for understanding him as a leader of the civil rights movement. King’s principles almost always trumped his desire for the best outcome or any desire for popularity. This is what separated King from many other leaders at the time.

King received two layers of criticism because of his strong convictions. Heated criticism was received within his own ranks as well as from outside observers, particularly the media. Within his own ranks, many activists working with King did not share his strong convictions of nonviolence, or they did so arbitrarily. Andrew Young, a friend and supporter of King only implemented nonviolence ‘because it was a practical solution’ and because ‘machine gunning down someone at a lunch counter or in a bus wouldn’t have been good public relations.’[19] The strongest of criticisms, however, only came to surface once King had spoken out against America’s role in Vietnam. Young, and some of King’s other friends were against King taking a public stance on Vietnam because it ‘would confuse the issue of civil rights with a non-relevant international military dispute.’[20] King, however, decided to follow his conscience and publically state that the Vietnam War was a ‘blasphemy against all that America stands for.’[21] King provoked a strong reaction from the media with one Washington Post reporter alleging that King’s speech against America’s role in Vietnam ‘was filled with bitter and damaging allegations and inferences that he did not and could not document’. The reporter went on to suggest that ‘many who have listened to him with respect will never again accord him the same confidence. He has diminished his usefulness to his cause, to his country and to his people.’[22] Others suggested that King should ‘stick to his own knitting’, and that he was ‘pandering to Ho Chi Minh.’[23]

King’s public stance on Vietnam proves an element of consistency in his views. It is clear that King spoke out against the war because of his deep conviction. He believed that this was the right thing to do, regardless of whether it would have a negative impact on the civil rights movement which he worked tirelessly to build. Even before he consulted others in the movement, Clark, a close friend of King felt ‘it was clear that Martin had already made his own decision to state publically … his anti-Vietnam war position.’[24] This is yet another example of King’s conscience driven leadership. King was often encouraged by his peers to enter politics, but he felt that elected officials ‘had to represent the majority’, whereas King ‘wanted to be a voice for the voiceless.’[25] King did not have a desire to represent the views of others, but to lead in a way that would ensure that the oppressed are listened to. When King spoke out against Vietnam, the Washington Post reported that ‘73% of American people disagree with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in his denunciations of the war in Vietnam and 60 per cent believe his position will hurt the civil rights movement.’[26] Reverend Tim Costello, the CEO of World Vision Australia, who was inspired by King, believes that unpopular decisions in leadership are some of the most important. For the same reasons as King, Costello also decided not to enter public office on a federal level citing that he would have to follow the people if he is their democratically elected leader. Like King, Costello prefers the role of the prophet, suggesting that the ‘prophet is one who is prepared to go against where the people are going, even in the opposite direction because it’s right.’[27] King’s principled approach to morality provoked strong criticism, even to being labelled a ‘sell out’ by Malcolm X.[28] This criticism did nothing to weaken King’s convictions.

When considering whether the movement made King, or whether King made the movement, it is important to note that King did not happen to be a minister of the gospels by sheer chance. King’s father, grand-father, great grand-father and father’s brother were all pastors.[29] It almost seems as though King was destined for his role in the church. However, as a person representing an economically and socially marginalised group of society, King would have needed a great deal of persistence and motivation to achieve in the way he did.

As King’s profile increased to celebrity status, attempts to assassinate his character also augmented greatly. Not only was criticism directed at King from the media, but now it was also being sent from government organisations. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover described King as ‘the most notorious liar in the country’, in attempt to destroy his platform.[30] The joint smear campaign by the FBI and the media was unable to crush King’s spirit. Until the day King was assassinated he spoke out against the evils which confronted him.

It is clear that King went well above what was expected from him in his role as a pastor. While he was a ‘good candidate’ for a leadership role in the American civil rights movement, he did not gain his status through sheer luck. Years of study, dissatisfaction with the status quo, and strong stances on public moral issues meant that King was well placed to lead the movement he propelled. While external environmental factors such as the movement itself were important parts of King’s leadership, it is clear that he embodied many great leadership qualities in and of himself. The distinction between the philosophies of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King which have been explored in this paper have shown how Malcolm X followed the mood of disenfranchised black Muslims in America while King took unpopular decisions in accordance with his conscience which turned him into a leader. All leaders have a relationship with those they lead, however, only few leaders have the ability to make difficult and unpopular decisions in order to act morally. King was one of few leaders who led like an unwelcome prophet.

                                                                                    

Bibliography

Albert, P. J. and R. Hoffman (1993). We shall overcome : Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Black freedom struggle. New York, Da Capo Press.

Clark, K. B. (1985). King, Malcolm, Baldwin : three interviews. Middletown, Wesleyan University Press.

Crosby, E. H. (1905). "Garrison, the non-resistant."   Retrieved September 20, 2011, from http://books.google.com/books?id=cJFHAAAAIAAJ.

De Leon, D. (1994). Leaders from the 1960s : a biographical sourcebook of American activism. Westport, Conn., Greenwood Press.

Louis, H. (1967). "King's Viet War Stand Called Wrong by 73%." The Washington Post, Times Herald (1959-1973)  Retrieved September 20, 2011, from http://ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=150687462&Fmt=7&clientId=16397&RQT=309&VName=HNP.

Malcolm X. (1963). "Message to Grassroots."   Retrieved September 8, 2011, from http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1145.

Malcolm X. (1964). "Telegram from Malcolm X."   Retrieved September 8, 2011, from http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/documentsentry/telegram_from_malcolm_x/.

Martin Luther King, J. (1954). "The Dimensions of a Complete Life."   Retrieved September 8, 2011, from http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/documentsentry/the_dimensions_of_a_complete_life_sermon_at_dexter_avenue_baptist_church/.

Martin Luther King, J. (1964). "Methodist Student Leadership Conference Address."   Retrieved September 10, 2011, from http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkmethodistyouthconference.htm.

Martin Luther King, J. P. P. (1967). "Why Jesus Called A Man A Fool."   Retrieved September 8, 2011, from http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/kingpapers/article/why_jesus_called_a_man_a_fool/.

Montgomery Police. (1955). "Arrest report for Rosa Parks."   Retrieved September 8, 2011, from http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/primarydocuments/rosa_parks_arrest_report.pdf.

Post, T. W. (1966). "Civil Rights Leaders Rapped on Vietnam." The Washington Post  Retrieved September 20, 2011, from http://ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=156447552&Fmt=7&clientId=16397&RQT=309&VName=HNP.

Talking Heads. (2009). "Interview with Tim Costello."   Retrieved September 10, 2011, from http://www.abc.net.au/tv/talkingheads/txt/s2593114.htm.

The Washington Post. (1967). "A Tragedy."   Retrieved September 20, 2011, from http://ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=150488362&Fmt=7&clientId=16397&RQT=309&VName=HNP.

The Washington Post. (1967). "Veterans Accuse King."   Retrieved September 8, 2011, from http://ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=150496822&Fmt=7&clientId=16397&RQT=309&VName=HNP.

Young, A. J. and K. Sehgal (2010). Walk in My Shoes : Conversations between a Civil Rights Legend and his Godson on the Journey Ahead. New York, Palgrave Macmillan. from http://MONASH.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=555410.

---

[1] De Leon, Leaders from the 1960s : a biographical sourcebook of American activism, Westport, Conn., 1994, p. 123.

[2] Albert and Hoffman, We shall overcome : Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Black freedom struggle, New York, 1993, pp. 14-15.

[3] Ibid., p. 15.

[4] Martin Luther King, The Dimensions of a Complete Life, Montgomery, 1954.

[5] Albert and Hoffman, We shall overcome : Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Black freedom struggle, 1993, p. 14 and Montgomery Police, Arrest report for Rosa Parks, Montgomery, 1955.

[6] De Leon, Leaders from the 1960s : a biographical sourcebook of American activism, 1994, p. 118.

[7] Martin Luther King, Why Jesus Called A Man A Fool, Chicago, 1967.

[8] Albert and Hoffman, We shall overcome : Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Black freedom struggle, 1993, pp. 20-21.

[9] Ibid., p. 17.

[10] Crosby, Garrison, the non-resistant, Chicago, 1905, pp. 15-16.

[11] One may be at liberty to argue that their ends were in fact of important difference. Malcolm X was not seeking integration but better treatment of the class in general, while King saw integration of whites and blacks to be a primary objective of the civil rights movement.

[12] Clark, King, Malcolm, Baldwin : three interviews, Middletown, 1985, p. 43.

[13] Malcolm X, Telegram from Malcolm X, 1964.

[14] Note: Malcolm X released these comments prior to King’s public stance on Vietnam.

[15] Malcolm X, Message to Grassroots, 1963. Note: I have taken to liberty to presume that this is an attack at King’s public position of the issues. However, it must be noted that Malcolm’s Message to Grassroots was not written to or for King as far as I can tell from my research. It does seem plausible that the attack on King’s beliefs were designed to ensure that Malcolm’s followers could be convinced of their position.

[16] Martin Luther King, Methodist Student Leadership Conference Address, Lincoln, 1964

[17] Clark, King, Malcolm, Baldwin : three interviews, 1985, p.23.

[18] Young and Sehgal, Walk in My Shoes : Conversations between a Civil Rights Legend and his Godson on the Journey Ahead, New York, 2010, p. 199.

[19] Ibid., pp. 196-197.

[20] Clark, King, Malcolm, Baldwin : three interviews, 1985, pp. 8-9.

[21] Post, Civil Rights Leaders Rapped on Vietnam, 1966.

[22] The Washington Post, A Tragedy, 1967.

[23] Post, Civil Rights Leaders Rapped on Vietnam, 1966, and The Washington Post, Veterans Accuse King, 1967.

[24] Clark, King, Malcolm, Baldwin : three interviews, 1985, p. 9.

[25] Young and Sehgal, Walk in My Shoes : Conversations between a Civil Rights Legend and his Godson on the Journey Ahead, 2010, p. 165.

[26] Louis, King's Viet War Stand Called Wrong by 73%, 1967.

[27] Talking Heads, Interview with Tim Costello, 2009.

[28] Clark, King, Malcolm, Baldwin : three interviews, 1985, p. 43.

[29] Albert and Hoffman, We shall overcome : Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Black freedom struggle, 1993, pp. 18-19.

[30] De Leon, Leaders from the 1960s : a biographical sourcebook of American activism, 1994, p. 120.