Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
second amendment right to bear arms gun control argumentative essay
second amendment right to bear arms gun control argumentative essay
second amendment right to bear arms gun control argumentative essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Dr. Martin Luther King is considered to be one of the most influential civil rights leader in the United States of America during the 1900’s. He had began his career as an ordained minister who worked primarily in the south to increase the numbers of African Americans registered voters in the southern communities but had later on spent the remainder of his life working towards the civil movements for the African American community. His goal was to put an end to the discriminatory unjust laws which denied civil rights to the African community. According to Dr. King “A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God” and “A unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law” (). Laws are, indeed, man-made …show more content…
King provided his definitions of just and unjust laws and I, too, can agree with his views and definition as my understanding and definitions are similar to Dr. King’s. According to me, a just should be one that is ethical, fair, unbiased, and one that honors each individual who resides within the law’s jurisdictions without any discrimination or racism; a law that is respected and honored by the nation as a whole and not in parts. Dr. King was an individual who raised his voice against the unjust laws which were out of harmony with the moral laws. Amongst these unjust laws, which were against the African community and were being obeyed and honored by citizens across the American nation, was the Jim Crow Laws. The Jim Crow Laws had prevented the African community to sit at the same level or even within an appropriately close proximity to an individual of another race (“Jim Crow…”). Unjust laws, such as this one, clearly show the racism and discrimination against the African community as they was given a different standard and a different level of treatment than the rest of the non-African communities across the nation. This was an unjust law, in both the light of Dr. King’s and mine definition of a “just law”, because it was unethical, immoral, and did not honor or protect all individuals residing across the American nation. Unfortunately, even today in our modern society unjust laws are being made across …show more content…
Each individual’s beliefs, ethics, and their background plays a role in their definitions of what a just and unjust law ought to be. According to Dr. King, a just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral laws or the laws of God, meanwhile, an unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. According to me, a just should be one that is ethical, fair, unbiased, and one that honors each individual who resides within the law’s jurisdictions without any discrimination or racism; a law that is respected and honored by the nation as a whole and not in parts. Within our American history, unjust laws such as the Jim Crow Laws existed which were discriminatory and racist towards the African community as the African were a different standard and a different level of treatment than the rest of the non-African communities across the nation. In our modern society and within our nation, unjust laws such as the right to bear arms and capital punishment exist. The second amendment, the right to bear arms being an unjust law as it’s failing to protect and secure the individuals across the nation. Capital punishment, on the other hand, is also an unjust law as it’s a law which authorizes the murder of another human legally; it’s inhumane. Across the globe, in countries such as Saudi Arabia, the male
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. received a Nobel Prize and was honored by the President of the United States for his contributions to society. On the other hand, he was prosecuted, convicted, incarcerated, and had his sentence had to be reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. It is hard to understand why he was incarcerated if what he did was noble. When we take into account these manifestations of the government's attitude towards Martin Luther King, we can safely make the assumption that the government is not always justified in the laws that it creates. Our government's original purpose was to keep order and ensure freedom to its people.
The idea of challenging an unreasonable law is central to both King, Jr.'s and Thoreau's plights, though each have very distinct characteristics unique to themselves. In King, Jr.'s case, he saw segregation and racial discrimination as mistakes on the part of the government and he set out to make substantial changes to the status quo. In doing so, he acted upon Thoreau's concept that every person retains the right to judge civil laws for decency and credibility. "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws," (Birmingham Jail 82). Should one find the law to be in the best interest of each individual as well as society as a whole, he should abide by it and make every effort to live by its standard. But reversely, should the law be found guilty of evil intentions and causing more harm than good, it is the duty of every person under that law to disregard it and make an attempt "to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support," (Disobedience 6).
In his famous essay, “Letter from Birmingham Jail,’’ Martin Luther King, Jr. cites conscience as a guide to obeying just laws and defying unjust laws. In the same way, Henry David Thoreau wrote in his famous essay, “Civil Disobedience,” that people should do what their conscience tells them and not obey unjust laws. The positions of the two writers are very close; they use a common theme of conscience, and they use a similar rhetorical appeal of ethos.
There are many variety of opinions when it comes to laws. In “The Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Martin Luther King expresses his views on just and unjust laws. According to Martin, laws that uplift human personalities is just. However, he also believes that any law that degrades human personalities is unjust.
King clears up any idea that he’s just someone who has broken the law for no reason. He does this by saying; “I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” (Para 15) This statement tells us that Dr. King is simply adhering to his moral responsibility by doing as he’s supposed to. He knows that following a one-sided makes no sense, and it would be submitting to evil. He even goes on to quote St. Augustine, declaring that, “an unjust law is no law at all.” (Para 15) Therefore, the segregation laws that were implemented in Birmingham at the time were by St. Augustine’s logic, no law at
In Dr. Martin Luther Kings Letter from the Birmingham City Jail, King speaks about the society he, and all other African Americans are living in. He starts to talk about just and unjust laws, stating 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 that the brutality the police officers are inflicting on civilians who fight against systemic racism is a way to keep order, adds to Kings problems with the current state of society. He is fighting against the ‘white moderate’, who are the white people who, although, are
Doctor Martin Luther King Jr.’s essay “Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience” has two main features. The first feature of King’s essay is a call for action; action to bring about change. The second feature, the more easily viewed feature of this essay is a call for a specific type of action to bring about a specific type of change. The change King wishes to bring about is a peace and equality brought about through non-violent actions.
First of all, King's devotion to "justice for all" was the consistent energy expressed in his letter. To illustrate, in an attempt to appeal to reason, King stated that, “How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God and an unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law"(52). King illustrates this appeal through definition by proving the basis for a just law. He further explains that a just law can be unjust when it is designed for only one group in society. Moreover, he said,” An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to o...
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
Martin Luther King, Jr. was a very prominent part of the movement to end Jim Crow laws. In 1963 he and the SCLC organized a boycott and marched to challenge these laws in Birmingham, Alabama. He and many others were arrested for this and while in jail he wrote to a response to the white ministers that were critiquing him. King was not afraid to stand up to the white people. He explained two kinds of laws, just laws; laws that needed to be followed, and unjust laws: laws that needed to be disobeyed. He is speaking about the Jim Crow laws, they were the unjust laws meant to be broken, these were the laws that needed to go away and go away for good and African Americans were not going to stop until the unjust Jim Crow laws were gone for good and they were not afraid of a fight. But within the African American community there were two opposing forces; the church force who had a non-violent approach and were very complacent, and the militants who were advocates of violence, believed white people were blue- eyed devils and that African Americans were better off not integrating and should create their own nation. King placed himself in the middle of these two forces. King was smart in placing himself in the middle of the two forces because he created a spectrum of options for himself and others who want to join him. King may have been oppressed by the whites, but he was not afraid to fight back and tell them how he felt, and by placing himself in between the church and
12). By this he means that if a law is going to be unjust it should not even be a law because it is not fair as laws should always be. For example King says “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God” (par. 13). King says this so he can appeal to the nature of the clergyman and help them see the error of their ways. He also says this so that he can tell them that these laws that are placed upon him and his people are unjust laws that do not comply with the law of God which also contradict the teachings of the clergymen. Another example that further develops the quote “‘An unjust law is no law is no law at all”’ is when King says “So segregation is not politically, economically, and sociologically unsound, but it is morally wrong and sinful” (par. 13). When King says this, he is implying that if segregation is sinful and wrong it should not even be a law and it should not even be supported by the clergymen as they are supposedly men of
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. received a Nobel Prize and was honored by the President of the United States for his contributions to society. On the other hand, he was prosecuted, convicted, incarcerated, and had his sentence reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. These explanations seem rather contradictory. If what he did was noble, why was he jailed for his actions? When we take into account these manifestations of the government's attitude towards Martin Luther King, we can safely make the assumption that the government is not always justified in the laws that it creates. Our government's original purpose was to keep order and ensure freedom to its people. As history has shown us, as in the case of African Americans, the government will expand its role and take away liberties of the few. The individual is justified in acting out in civil disobedience when the government restricts the liberties of the individual.
Aquinas’s indication that “An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law.” as any law that is not in harmony with the moral law or the `Law of God`.Martin Luther King saw that segregation was not only rooted in unjust laws, but from groups who placed the laws on minorities expecting them to follow. However, these majority groups fail to follow the law themselves, therefore making it unjust. King felt that we should never obey an unjust law. He felt it necessary for us to obey unjust laws in non violent ways in order to gain civil rights, and that the supreme courts were not the way to solve segregation. He made this clear by coming to Birmingham in the first place. King thought it necessary to show direct action. He himself claimed, “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue.” In this quote King makes it clear that he is upset with the way Birmingham has handled the segregation issues, and that nonviolent direct action is the only resort. Sit ins, marches, etc. were now the only tools they could use to lead to negotiation. King chose this path because there were no other
Dr. King notices that the clergymen are anxious over the black man’s “willingness to break laws” (King pg.218). He understands their anxiety over that issue. King then refers to the “Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools," praising it for its civil rights initiative (King pg.218). By mentioning the Supreme Court decision, he is reminding the reader that even a credible source such as the Supreme Court supports racial equality. Since most citizens are law abiding, the addition of the Supreme Court decision might convince the reader adopt the belief of racial equality. King then streamlines into a rhetorical question and answers the question. King writes, “One may well ask: ‘How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying other laws” (King 218). This question is King admitting that his intention seems paradoxical since he urges people to follow “the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation," while he is apparently willing to break laws (King pg.218). He insists that it is not a paradox, but rather an acknowledgement of the distinction between “just and unjust” laws (King pg.218). He insists that everyone has a “legal” and “moral responsibility” to follow just laws, but one equally “has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws” (King pg.218). In order to further provide evidence for his claims, King alludes to St.
The first example of the morality issue Dr. King raises is a just law, verses an unjust law. In his essay Dr King describes to his readers the difference between the two. “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law." Here Doctor King is defending his belief that there is a moral issue in some laws. He defends his statement by giving an example of Germany during the Nazi rule. King discusses what Hit...