Antigone vs Martin Luther King Jr in rhetoric
Should we truly be punished for breaking laws that break moral code? According to Antigone and Martin Luther King Jr the answer appears to be no. They both defend their actions that break the rules yet favor different rhetorical devices. Throughout Antigone’s speech she seems to favor pathos to convey her reason to break a law. When explaining her actions she evokes the emotion in her audience by explaining what would have happened if she had follow the laws she would have allowed her “own mothers son to not”, then explains how it would “have been agony”, the perspective draws an emotional response that she hopes to use as empathy. When threatened death as a punishment she expresses that if she “is to die before her time” that she would “consider that a gain”. She again uses pathos to draw motion from the king by explaining that death would be worth her action. This adds a more dramatic moment which in turn causes more emotion.
Unlike Antigone Martin Luther King Jr uses logic through logos to make his argument after being called an “extremist” he explains this is not always a bad thing. …show more content…
They share similar viewpoints on how laws are unfair as well as similar use of ethos and logos. They both argue that the laws being pushed against them are not rooted. Antigone expresses this when she argues that a "mere mortal” could not "override the gods”. Similarly Martin Luther King Jr argues that the law is a "human law not rooted in eternal and natural law”. They both used ethos to make their point. They both share a similar opinion and use similar rhetorical devices to get their point across. Not only do they feel that these laws are unrooted they also feel that they are unjust. Antigone expresses this by saying that these laws did not show "justice”, nor "Ordain such laws for men”. Likewise MLK believed that "one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust