Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Martin Luther Kings Just Law
Martin Luther Kings Just Law
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Martin Luther Kings Just Law
Martin Luther King Jr. believes there are two specific types of laws: just and unjust. Just laws are ones in which humans must obey in order to maintain the safety, equality, and freedom of the individual. He states that “one has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws.” Justly, these laws benefit society and are intended to align with the moral conscience of the human being. On the other side “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws” as, according to St. Augustine, "an unjust law is no law at all.” Unjust laws are simply a moral mistake in the governmental system that require being broken, whether that be through civil disobedience or simple negotiation to prompt the change. The way in which one determines …show more content…
King emphasizes the fact that one must follow just laws to avoid anarchy and respect the rights of other human beings. However, he and others have a “moral responsibility” to fight against unjust laws for the benefit of society. He states that individual “who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law” as they are adjusting the basic intent of the law to realign with its moral law through the form of civil disobedience. It is important to note that this view is not ‘new’ or radical according to King. Legality is a very arbitrary term within a historical context as King points out that what the Nazi’s did was legal while what the “Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal."” Therefore, civil disobedience and the breaking of legal law is justified and necessary to mold a better …show more content…
There are specific laws that are put in place to benefit the majority while, unintentionally, infringe upon the rights of the few. Are these laws then unjustified not because of their intent but because of their action? More specifically, can intent for a law overrides its actual ‘justness’? All of these answers are based on personal opinion rather a general moral ground making King’s ideals more accurate on a broad category rather than a very specific, controversial situation such as the Heinz dilemma. However, when thinking of basis on which King came to his conclusion, there is always a moral, more specifically, a Godly answer to the morality of law. Laws are guidelines on how one should civilly live and only laws in which break the moral civility humans need should be modified. These just laws always intend to help society even if there are specific justified circumstances in which they can be broken such as the Heinz dilemma. Therefore, King’s ideas on what makes a law just or unjust always maintain “human personality” and prevent the greed and power of humans from restricting the rights of
King insist that all of the laws ought to reflect the societal moral concerns. In this particular letter, he is making that point in the most explicit manner. He touches on sameness and equivocally states that the law is a form that expression of morality. For instance, he says that separation is a sin yet the law encourages it, and that laws itself is not only unjust, but also sinful. Dr. King also makes a number of dissections which bring out the good quality any legal mind must possess.
"an unjust law is no law at all."- quote by St. Augustine who was an Christian theologian and philosopher, whose writings influenced the development of Western Christianity. Martin Luther King Jr. was a baptist minister and civil rights leader that made advancements for civil rights peacefully, exclusively for African Americans in America. Mohandas Gandhi was a non-violent leader of the Indian independence movement against British rule. Accordingly, both MLK Jr. and Gandhi were leaders for civil rights that practiced and preached non-violent approaches for their freedom.Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi were both valid in their judgment to break the law for their peaceful protests.
He stated that” privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily”. He illustrated that Negroes realize from their bad experience that they need to confront the society by non-violence tension to persuade whites with their rights otherwise, white people can’t perceive what segregation means. In addition, King supported his claim that delayed justice is never attained. King defended his claim of breaking the laws as there are just laws and in–just laws. He explained that the law, which degrades human personality isn’t a law. He mentioned that” all the segregation status are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damage the personality”. King asserted that there is no democratic law when it doesn’t concern with a part of the society. King provided historical support for the in-just law. He referred to what Hitler did with the Jewish community in Germany was a law. However, no one nowadays is doubtful that Hitler’s law was in-just because he persecuted and killed Jews and prevented any one to assist and comfort them. Consequently, he implied that white clergymen should think about what they did with Negroes and help them as their brothers against
Through King’s peaceful protest, he works to find his definition of good life in equality, where peaceful protest can “create a situation. [and] inevitably open the door to negotiation,” (King). However, King’s attempt to overwrite centuries of oppression and rise against unjust laws doesn’t come without its own set of consequences and benefits.... ... middle of paper ...
While these laws are to be followed, some laws may seem unjust. Unjust laws is where what feels emotionally correct overrides what may be morally or logically correct. An example that King referenced was, “It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a jew in Hitler’s Germany. But I am sure that if I had lived in Germany during that time, I would have aided and comforted by Jewish brother even though it was illegal”.
Dr. Martin Luther King addressed many topics in, “Letter from Birmingham Jail”. He answered all the issues that were aimed towards him in a very skillful and well thought out manner. These issues came from, “A Call For Unity”, which was a letter published by eight local clergymen expressing their feelings about what Dr. King was doing. One concern in particular that King did an outstanding job of confronting was that of the clergymen’s anxiety about him breaking the law. King addresses the question of, “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” by clarifying that there are just and unjust laws. He also goes on to explain the difference between the two, the effect of unjust laws on the people that they are aimed towards, as
In Dr. Martin Luther King’s Letter from the Birmingham City Jail, King speaks about the society he and all other African Americans are living in. He starts to discuss just and unjust laws and states the difference between the two: “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.” Most people, at the time, thought that if a law is in place, it is for the better of society. The idea held by mostly white America that the brutality the police officers are inflicting on civilians who fight against systemic racism as a way to keep order adds to Kings problems with the current state of society. He is fighting against the ‘white moderate’, who is the white
law if it can be seen as unjust or destructive to many peoples. Dr. King would
On the word of Martin Luther King Jr., “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr wrote a letter to fellow clergymen after being arrested for civil disobedience in Birmingham, Alabama. I agree with his statements towards the differences between just and unjust laws. A just law is one that abides by the law of God and the moral law. An example of this is when the majority party puts a law into place and are willing to follow that law along with the minority. On contrary, an unjust law is not put into place for the sake of the majority and the minority. An unjust law seems unfair to the group that is least likely to be represented. These laws are not made for everyone that's why Dr. Martin Luther King didn't have a problem with breaking unjust laws because they were just that, unjust. Unjust means not behaving according to what is morally right and fair. He says that there is a difference between law, just and unjust and with morality (good and bad). Dr. King also says that it's
...y, and also fidelity to the law. Acts of civil disobediences are aimed to defend principles of justice. In King’s case he aims to persuade the local government and the businesses to comply with desegregation laws. It was important for him to communicate fidelity to the law. You should lovingly break a law, because your reason behind protesting to to achieve what you see as a higher good. You are not directly hurting the people. King’s argument ultimately is you can break the law to make the law more just. You are attempting to break the law to show that the law is unjust, and it is an act of saying that the law can be made better than it is now. He’s gathered his facts and understanding of the law, it is 100% clear there’s a problem. For civil disobedience to be justified a real injustice must exist, or else it wouldn’t addresses a sense of justice of the majority.
Martin Luther King and Henry David Thoreau each write exemplary persuasive essays that depict social injustice and discuss civil disobedience, which is the refusal to comply with the law in order to prove a point. In his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” King speaks to a specific audience: the African Americans, and discusses why he feels they should bring an end to segregation. Thoreau on the other hand, in “Civil Disobedience,” speaks to a broader, non-addressed audience as he largely expresses his feelings towards what he feels is an unjust government. Both essays however, focus on the mutual topics of morality and justice and use these topics to inform and motivate their audience to, at times, defy the government in order to establish the necessary justice.
Justice is often misconceived as injustice, and thus some essential matters that require more legal attentions than the others are neglected; ergo, some individuals aim to change that. The principles of civil disobedience, which are advocated in both “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau and “Letter from Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King Jr. to the society, is present up to this time in the U.S. for that purpose.
The ideas of King are very similar to the ideas of Thoreau. Moreover, the “Letter from Birmingham Jail” shows that King, read the writings of many famous people. From these two reasons, King had probably read “Civil Disobedience” as an important document regarding justice and injustice. Therefore, the positions of the two writers are very close, and they cite conscience as a guide to obeying just laws.
What lengths should one go to in order to survive? This is a question which has challenged the human race for generations and to which no satisfactory answer exists. In the modern world, this issue is examined theoretically, but rarely confronts individuals, with the exception of the most destitute. However, in harsh environments and forbidding territories, this matter becomes very real and pressing. Nature pays no attention to the arbitrary emotions of man, demanding only the forfeiture of the sorrowfully short life granted to him. Many would argue that in order to delay the inevitable conclusion awaiting every man, humans must act upon their primal intuition rather than their emotions. Jack London’s “The Law of Life” includes this naturalistic viewpoint that human survival instinct drives individuals more than feelings or compassion. London shows this through his protagonist Old Koshkoosh’s past experiences and tribal upbringing, his view on life, and the actions of his family members.