Comparison Of Civil Disobedience: Socrates And Martin Luther King Jr.

Civil disobedience is defined as the refusal to obey the demands or certain laws of a government/ occupying power. Without resorting to violence or active events of conflict, it is typically used in the form of a peaceful protest. Civil disobedience has been seen in historical context as a main approach and philosophy of nationalist movements in Africa, India, and also in the American civil rights movement. It can also be a useful tactic in labor, anti-war, and other social movements occurring in numerous countries around the world. In both Sophocles’ Antigone and Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail, the author describes two very different displays of civil disobedience. Antigone disobeyed “man’s law” and buried her brother. Martin Luther King, Jr., on the other hand, fought to change the law for the rights of a large group of people. For this reason, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s efforts were more admirable than the efforts of Antigone.

There were many circumstances in the life of Socrates and Marin Luther King which reveals their approach towards changing the world. They took several measures to improve the lives of people but the worst thing is that there end was not good. They both died in the hands of injustice. Socrates said that people should believe on their own caliber and follow the truth rather than following the majority. MLK on the other hand elaborates the topic of just and unjust law and how it is related to the unjust law. Their approaches were not similar but their intentions were same. Now the main question is ‘Is there any way we can response to those various instances of social injustice? What are unjust law and application of unjust law and how should we

At first glance, respect for the social contract and civil disobedience seem to be in direct opposition of each other While some may argue that this affection prevents him from practicing civil disobedience. Additionally, they argue that any violation of the law would erode its power and lead to anarchy. However, their argument oversimplifies the social contract as just a set of rules to be followed when it includes consequences for breaches of the law. Further, as King argues proponents of civil disobedience, who break unjust laws and accept the consequences, display a rich love for the law. To illustrate the difference between civil disobedience and disrespect for the law King lays forth a set of requirements;

In the modern age of America, there are many people who have read and abided by the beliefs of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is a philosophy created by Henry Thoreau that states one must not conform to certain laws for a variety of reasons, which was also an ideology utilized by Martin Luther King Jr. The world has witnessed many acts of disobedience from the masses, and have thus portrayed the idea that this belief still operates successfully. The ideology that surrounds civil disobedience also strongly influences the individual in a particular society, which also depicts the principles of this belief have adjusted to the modern world. In the new age of America, the beliefs of Thoreau and King are still prevalent and found in society due to the influence it has on movement that brings change; thus, illustrating that American citizens commonly refer and utilize this belief.

     Martin Luther King and Henry David Thoreau both believed that one should stand up for what he believes in, as wells as accepting the consequences for his actions. Even though they also had different views about what makes law just or unjust. First of all, Martin Luther King believed that a law that is just should be square with the moral law or the law of God. This basically means a law should pertain to the Ten Commandments according to the bible. He also thought an unjust law was one that was inflicted on to a minority who did not even have the right to vote for this law in the first place.

From the monarchs of the ancient era to the democracy of today, order has been maintained by means of rules and regulations known as laws. Compliance with these laws is enforced through punishments ranging in severity according to the crimes committed to reduce violence and misconduct from individuals within a society. However, just as citizens consent to abide by the laws of the state in which they reside, one is compelled to preserve justice and condemn the unjust decisions of man when the social contract contradicts the laws sanctioned by God. Approaching this conflict between natural and manmade laws in a non-violent manner is called “civil disobedience”.

In Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, King emphasizes the need for civil disobedience when faced with unjust laws. This refutes Socrates’ claim made in the “Crito” that one must follow the law under all circumstances. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates is a proponent of civil disobedience. This will be described based on King’s definition of civil disobedience, Socrates’ supporting claims based on his charges, and how both Socrates and King’s actions both resonate with one another.

Socrates, amongst the most influential thinkers to emerge from Greek civilization and, perhaps the most noble and wisest Athenian to have ever lived, many centuries before Christ, is noted for not writing anything himself as all that is known about his philosophical thought is through the writings of Xenophon and Plato. By contrast, Martin Luther King Jr. lived in the nineteenth century wherein his main legacy was to secure progress on African American civil rights in the United States. Although it appears that both Socrates and King are incomparable in that their historical contexts are distinctive; Plato’s Crito, a dialogue between Socrates and Crito wherein Socrates refuses to escape

Civil disobedience spawns a major and widely debated issue by many who established by well-known intelligent scholars and many examples of civil disobedience become displayed. The acts of civil disobedience can be noted in major works such as Sophocles?s Antigone, King?s ?Letter from Birmingham Jail?, or even from Plato?s ?from Crito?. A specific claim exemplified throughout these works make that civil disobedience races in gaining popularity and should remain allowed, and continued to be seen as a solution to reform poorly established laws. A claim represented is, civil disobedience is right. Rhetorically, appeals such

Civil Disobedience is the act of purposely opposing and breaking a law that has been created by the government. When one hears the word "disobedience", one pulls a negative connotation from it; however, Civil Disobedience can sometimes lead to great and immense positive change that can benefit society as a whole. Two wonderful examples of this can be seen in Rosa Parks' refusal to relinquish her seat to a white man, and in MLK'S "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" where he states why he and his fellow marchers must continue to practice Civil Disobedience and to march despite being told they would be arrested if they did so.

The main idea of civil disobedience is that citizens have the right and the obligation to challenge the laws of the state when they feel that the laws opposes certain superior ideals. Martin Luther King Jr. and Socrates have different opinions towards civil disobedience and how they should react toward laws that are unfair. I agree with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s tactic for civil disobedience just as I agree that steps must be taken to reform the laws that we find unjust. However, I do agree with Socrates on why we should follow the law but if no one ever challenged the laws then some old unjust laws would still be set in place today.

Antigone defies the law of King Creon to honor her brother with a proper burial. She willingly goes against the King to follow the law of the gods’ regardless of the consequences, doing what she believes is right. Similarly, Martin Luther King travels to Birmingham to march and protest the injustices towards Black people because he believed it is the right thing to do. Although Antigone was not afraid to die for what she believed in, Martin Luther King’s method of civil disobedience was more effective because Antigone failed to promote negotiations and just accepted her punishment freely. King believed that to properly have a nonviolent approach towards injustice you must be able to speak peacefully to gain understanding for negotiation. Urging people to create tension in the form of civil disobedience to promote awareness of the injustices.

“A very few—as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men—serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it,” Henry Thoreau claimed in his essay, “Civil Disobedience.” Martin Luther King Jr. indisputably served the people of the state by his own conscience and was definitely treated as an enemy. “We want to be free!” King cried out during his “I've Been to the Mountaintop” speech. It didn't matter that it was seen as an evil act against the men in charge to him. “Civil disobedience” immensely impacted Martin Luther King and supported his views and drive that lead to the Civil Rights Movement.

From the time we are children and throughout the duration of our lives, we are told to abide by certain sets of rules. In most situations this is a perfectly acceptable expectation; speed limits, remaining quiet in libraries, and waiting until the age of twenty-one to drink are all reasonable things to ask of people. After all, these rules and laws are put in place to ensure a peaceful and safe society. However, when these rules begin to infringe upon the rights of certain groups, some citizens turn to civil disobedience as a form of protest. While some may argue that civil disobedience is nothing more than a violation of the law, it has also proven to have a positive impact on society, in more ways than one. Used by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin

Furthermore, a person who acts with civil disobedience means, in the words of Martin Luther King Jr., “One who breaks an unjust law… openly, lovingly…, and with a willingness to accept the penalty”. In other words, civil disobedience is respectfully breaking a law that is disagreed with, and then openly accepting the consequence. During the world’s history,