Ethics of Protest Moral force protest has a greater chance to succeed than a physical force protest.
Discuss in relation to our contemporary world and the ever-changing issues. In the modern world today, there is a vast diversity of global issues which are constantly being dealt with. Moral force protest and physical force protest are utilized in hope of achieving a purpose and proving a point. For both of these acts of protest, there must be a considerable amount of facts and evidence supporting it. Both protests, in any way that it is done, both are in some way seeking for the support of the ‘leaders', most of the time, the ‘leaders' being a public agency or even the government. Moral force protest involves logical and persuasive speeches which are fighting for a cause within the boundaries of laws and regulations. It is doable to legally get enough support for a cause and ultimately win by not ever once using any sort of violence. In some cases, hunger strikes by the protestors or collecting signatures are some of the peaceful strategies that protest take in consideration. Aside from persuasive speeches, and collecting signatures and hunger strikes, the refusal to obey certain laws and the passive resistance, that is, resisting to incoming violence usually from the government, are some other ways to morally protest without any physical violence. Sometimes due to the refusal to abide to certain laws and regulations the protestors may find abusive, the moral force protest supporters might find themselves confronting the law, and in some cases act illegally.
In recent years, certain countries that had not previously granted 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 without utilizing any trace of violence or physical force. The opposing way to support some strong cause can be through physical force protests. This involves violent protests which may harm people purposely and cause large amounts of damages. Destructive attitude from the people protesting for a cause by using physical force and violence is very common. In most cases violence is used in hope of getting attention through media publicity. Physical force protest has a very distinctive difference from moral force protest. One of the most significant ones being that is violence, these protestors are terrorizing the general public and trying to get the government to be aware of their terrorism, and give in. This type of protest not only gets the attention of the government and public but, also allows for the government to take action against the protestors. Breaking the law or even not following the law cause many arrests and sentences for protestors causing disruptions. Moral force protest is not even slightly related with any type of terrorism or violence. Not in any way, do the protestors practicing moral force protest adjust to terrorism like physical force protestors. By terrorizing the general public and the government, these protestors think they'll create such an intolerable situation that the government will eventually give in to their extreme. Along with this type of situation much violence is usually used in order to get the point across. Now, if a government is prepared to give in their domination of violence or terrorism over to a group protesting an intellectual and important cause through physical force protest, the situation is most likely to depreciate fast. The government's domination of violence should constantly remain intact, under no circumstance should it be put at risk. No matter how threatening a situation the government is facing, they should always have good strategies to handle just about any situation. A few examples of physical force protest can be seen in recent IRA bombings; the principle of the IRA being to gain independence for Northern Ireland from Britain (O’Neill). So far, these bombings have proved to be counter productive, nevertheless, the IRA seem to be persistent. Therefore they continue to terrorize societies and sometimes hurt or even kill innocent people. Although it is not impossible to respond, the issue of whether which protest is more successful, moral or physical. It is a very intricate and contradicted subject to discuss and come to a rational and correct conclusion. The acceptance of either form of protest can be in many ways extremely conflicting.
Due to the vast amount of information that surrounds this contradicting issue, many valid arguments can be ingeniously 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 favor of moral protest force, someone else can turn around that same argument and use it against moral force protest, and in favor of physical force protest, still seeing the argument and reasons as a definite truthfulness. After all, truth is the real state of things, according to each being. A persuasive and reasonable speech clearly justifying any reasons backing up a specific cause may be a lot more effective than acting upon 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 conscientiously; more so than if any kind of physical force was used. Valid facts and precise statistics and information that act within the law have a high chance of accomplishing their goal due to the fact that there are no illegalities being used, no crime is committed, no panic should be feared. For example, Martin Luther King Jr. fought with all his might and power in favor of the blacks of the United States; never once using any type of violent force, his speeches and protests were greatly 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 United States of America, although there are still some cases of severe racism there, Luther King's fight clearly decreased it greatly (Clayborne). Nevertheless, his fight was hard and long, and in more ways than none, exceedingly successful, therefore very much worth it.
Another example of peaceful protesting are hunger strikes such as the ones used by the people under the leadership of Gandhi in India, could prove to be extremely effective if only 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 (Desai). 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 (Desai). The refusal to obey the law can be considered illegal, but to a certain extent, some laws for being deliberately abusive to the general public, can and probably will be ignored by some people. Physical force protest has been recently used in Israel and in the UK in many different types of situations like protesting.
Another example, are the Arabs with their ‘suicide bombers' killings needlessly and violently to show their discontent with the peace process started by the Israelis (Lamb). Violence to show one's discontent in the way a country is going about trying to bring peace, it is ironic and almost unexplainable. It is sad to see that a country that is trying to live without fear and violence are constantly being bombarded with such violence and hostility. By destroying the human race and trying to terrorize the Israelis, the Arabs aren't gaining anything at all, they're simply gaining publicity which shouldn't be given to them in the first place, for their acts are simply monstrous (Lamb). Also, it does not make any sense that they are doing it for not an intelligent reason and at the same time wasting money that the country can put to good use. The IRA is also a very good example of protestors fighting for a strong and just cause by means of violence. The cause the IRA is constantly fighting for is actually one that could indeed be expressed in moral force protest and perhaps maybe even justified (O’Neill). By turning to violence, the IRA as well as the Arabs, are immediately ruling out any possibilities of winning their causes. Automatically, the Arabs are putting themselves in a position that can later be overturned by the general public or even the government. This type of protest only lasts for so long, until general public cannot put up with it anymore. They are, in the long run, doomed to failure.
Today's contemporary world has more than 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 it is. It is already hard enough for many countries to try to get a sense of peace and having an issue to violently fight for is the last thing they need in their lives. There are so many progresses that can be acquired by merely using one's intelligence and logic. However, supporting a cause following moral force protest, why should anyone even stop to consider opting for useless and wasteful violence is completely beyond. No government will ever give in to violence or even terrorism used in order to gain popularity and create chaos for any global issue. The mission to terrorize their way through, by any protestors 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. Moral force protest can be a great alternative to any type of civil disobedience that individuals can get into trouble as well. This type of moral force protest is also a great example to our future generations. This is also a good way of eliminating violence and regression in our world and showing that good ethics in protest can show others that good and just causes that are accomplished should have a good reputation behind them. It should be strongly considered, especially since we are now living in a time when violence seems intent on destroying us.