Moral Force Protesting

Moral force protest has a greater chance to succeed that physical force protest.
Discuss in relation to our contemporary world.

In the modern world today, there is an immense diversity of global issues
which are constantly being dealt with. Moral force protest as well as physical
force protest are used, in hope of achieving a purpose and proving a point. For
both of these acts of protest, there must be a substantial amount of facts and
evidences backing it up. Both protests, no matter how it\'s done, are in some way
seeking for the support of the ‘leaders\', most of the time, the ‘leaders\' being
the government.
Moral force protest involves logical convincing speeches which are fighting
for a cause within the boundaries of law. It\'s possible to legally get enough
support for a cause and eventually win by never once using any sort of violence.
In some cases, hunger strikes by the ‘victims\' are also done. Aside from well
constructed speeches and hunger strikes, the refusal to obey certain laws and
the passive resistance, that is, resisting to incoming violence usually from the
government, are other ways to morally protest without any physical violence.
Sometimes due to the refusal to abide to certain laws the supporters may find
abusive, the moral force protest supporters might find themselves confronting
the law, and perhaps even acting illegally. In recent years, certain countries
which hadn\'t previously given 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. Physical force wasn\'t in any
way used in this case.
The opposing way to support some strong cause can be through physical force
protests. This involves violent protests which may harm people purposely.
Destructive attitude from the people supporting a cause by using physical force
is indeed very common. In most cases violence is used in hope of getting
attention and media publicity. Physical force protest, has a very distinctive
difference from moral force protest; one of the most important ones being that,
by violence, these supporters are terrorising the general public, and trying to
get the government to recognise their terrorism, and give in. Moral force
protest is not even remotely linked with terrorism.
Not in any way, do the supporters practising moral force protest adapt to
terrorism like do these physical force supporters. By terrorising the general
public and the government itself, these supporters think they\'ll create such an
intolerable situation that the government will give in to their extreme and
sometimes unnecessary violence. Now, if any government is prepared to give in
their monopoly of violence over to a group supporting an intelligent and
important cause through physical force protest, the situation is most likely to
deteriorate rapidly. The government\'s monopoly of violence should constantly
remain intact, under no circumstance should it be put at risk, no matter how
threatening a situation they are facing. Violence should remain their monopoly.
A few examples of physical force protest can be seen in recent IRA bombings;
the purpose of the IRA being to gain independence for Northern Ireland from
Britain. So far, these bombings have proved to be counter productive,
nevertheless, the IRA seem to be relentless. Therefore they continue to
terrorise society and sometimes wound or even kill innocent people.
Although not impossible to answer, the issue of whether which protest is more
successful, moral or physical, it is a very complex and contradiction filled
subject to discuss and come to a logical and correct conclusion to. The
acceptance of either form of protest can be in many ways extremely contradictory.
Due to the sea of information that surrounds this issue, many valid arguments
can be cleverly 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 favour of moral protest force, someone else can easily turn around that
same argument and use it against moral force protest, and in favour of physical
force protest, still seeing the argument and reasons as a definite truth. After
all, truth is the real state of things, according to each individual.
A reasonable speech clearly justifying any reasons backing up a specific
cause may be a lot more effective than acting upon blatant 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 attentively; more so than if any kind of physical