Comparison of Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. Anyone can say that a law is unjust and unjust. However, who is really willing to accept the consequences of violating an unjust law? Is breaking this law really worth it? It is the government that decides whether a law is reasonable, but what happens if a member of the public believes a law is not? Should he rebel against this law? Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. answered yes to this question and believed that it was necessary to denounce an injustice. They both believed that the government had many flaws. Although they shared many beliefs on many of the same topics regarding civil disobedience, they had many different views on how government should operate and how citizens should be treated by society. Both Martin Luther King Jr. and Thoreau believed action was needed. protest against an unjust law through peaceful demonstrations. If someone wants to openly express their disagreement with an unjust law, they must be prepared to accept the consequences. Martin Luther King Jr. and Thoreau both demonstrated this acceptance of consequences by going to prison without repercussions. This shows that they sincerely believed in eradicating such a law that forces them to do something they don't want to do. Wanted Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested for gathering with others to peacefully protest, which police said was illegal because they...