Abstract

Contrary to common belief, Martin Luther King, Jr. does not refute the right to violence. Yet in situations where a right to violence would obtain, King chooses nonviolence. While King's renunciation is often articulated in terms of ideal obligations to transcendent principles, this study makes the case that nonviolence may be preferred for material effects. In fact, King often articulated the case for nonviolence in two modes: the better known transcendental mode and the lesser studied material mode, what is here termed his pacifist materialism.