Epistemological Theory Of Coherentism

Martin Luther King Jr. expresses his views for obeying “Just” laws, while disregarding “Unjust” laws because of moral purposes. In the “Letter from Birmingham Jail” Dr. King speaks on how he “Urge people to obey laws,” as well as “urge them to disobey segregation ordinances”. “I agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.” Dr. King’s reason for following certain laws and not others is because he believes there are two types of laws. Just laws are beneficial to all races and “Is the man-made code that squares with the moral law or the Law of God”, unjust laws neglects certain human races needs and personalities and “Is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.” Dr. King does not disapprove Supreme Court decisions, yet if it involves segregation he feels as though it “Distorts the soul and damages the personality.” Dr. King states, “Segregation is not only politically, economically, and sociologically unsound, it is also morally wrong and sinful.” At this point, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is past describing how segregation affects people, but is now saying how segregation for example affects the political system such as denying Negroes the right to vote. “Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters.” Negroes make up the majority population in the counties of Alabama “Not a single Negro is

To understand King’s views on nonviolent protest, I will start by summarizing some of the main points in his “Letter from Birmingham jail”. In spite of the fact that the "Letter” is verifiably worried with justice all through, King likewise addresses the question specifically at a few focuses. In actuality, he places that justice maintains the poise of the human soul, while injustice conflicts with it. By talking about this idea by and large, he builds up criteria by which to obscurely assault both segregation and silence it. He at last suggests that the man who sees injustice and does nothing to stop it is acting unjustly also. Taking after this thought, he contends that laws must be permeated with an ethical sense so as to be just; as such, law and morality can not be viewed as independent interests or areas. The best way to really enact change and help humankind rise above its confinements is to act with as well as grasp “extremism”. According to Mott, “That this action had been termed “extreme” King admits “initially disappointed” him.” But King decides that if loyalty to good principles

Their thoughts in understanding and defining the world were almost the same. They both took several steps to change the world. The most rational work concerning the topic of injustice is based on Plato’s Crito and Martin Luther King’s letter from Birmingham.

King differentiates between just and unjust laws, eliminating any argument as to what his letter is referring to. He quotes St. Thomas Aquinas: “An unjust law is a code that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.” By precisely defining the difference between just and unjust laws, King makes it difficult for anyone to refute his argument that segregation is not a law to be followed. King points out that while segregation may be legal, that does not necessarily mean that it is morally right. A majority of legislation passed did not include the votes of minorities, which contradicts the direct foundation of the country, as outlined by the Constitution, something that even the strongest segregationist must respect. King ends his argument with a resonating rhetorical question: “Can any law enacted under [morally wrong] conditions be considered democratically structured?” This question guides readers to the logical conclusion that with segregation, laws passed disregarding the votes of minorities, comes the fall of democracy, a fall with drastic repercussions as a country in which laws are passed to suppress minorities and benefit only the majority is no country at

King went against the status quo in the things he said and did. He goes on to explain in his speech the multitude of unjust laws that present themselves to us today and the ramification that comes with having so called laws in place. An example of this is when King explains that there are some places where the law is just and others unjust. “For instance, I was arrested Friday on a charge of parading without a permit (King 3).” He goes on to say that there are

He commits this nonviolent act to abolish an unjust law (Jim Crow Laws) that resonated out of harmony with his moral truths. In that case, King is a proponent of civil disobedience because he does not comply with what he finds as unjust and seeks action to cause change.

Martin Luther King Jr. was in jail because he took direct action to show all the unjust laws’ that were taking place. He showed civil disobedience by exercising rights that everyone had but, because him and his people were “black” they were treated differently under the same laws. For example, when he said “I have been arrested on a charge for parading without a permit… such ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest” (King, 4). By stating

As a result of racist laws that forced blacks to be segregated and refused them their right to peacefully protest, Birmingham, Alabama in the 1960’s, was considered the most racist part of the United States and Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. worked towards removing segregation laws from being enforced. In “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. publicly addressed the issue of racism on a religious, political, and social aspect by addressing his letter to the clergymen, disobeying the law through nonviolent civil disobedience, and expressing disappointment when he did not receive support from the white moderate, respectively. Advocating against the extreme racial injustice in Birmingham, Dr. King’s support of St. Augustine’s belief that “an unjust law is no law at all” caused a controversial debate across the country over who has the authority to decide which laws should be disobeyed (King 3). Although Dr. King addressed his letter to the white clergymen, his target audience was to the entire white moderate of the country whom he hoped would help him gain support in order to change unjust laws that promote segregation and refuse citizens of their First Amendment rights to a peaceful protest (King 4). Dr. King was looking for support from other members of society in order to create an effective change in society’s ethics. Moreover, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s large audience and public movement used nonviolent

Martin Luther King uses historical examples to prove his point, using logos which most intellectuals can understand, and then uses examples for any African American can understand. In paragraph 16, King talks about St. Thomas Aquinas and his definition of an unjust law. "Any law that degrades human personality is unjust."(King, Pg.3) In Paragraph 21, "In the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake."(King, Pg.4) He discusses Nebuchadnezzar and how people in that time refused to obey his laws because they were unjust, just as he did in Birmingham. Socrates, the Boston tea party, early Christians who gave their lives for their religion. These historical events gave King an edge in his persuasiveness. Now he isn't just someone who has broken laws, now he is now just like all other famous ancient historical figures. However he also addresses his "Negro brothers" in paragraph 14, when he describes what its like to have to tell your children that they cant go somewhere or do something because they are black, or what it is like to watch as your family is beaten or lynched in front of your eyes. He is directing this at the

Martin Luther King Jr., was a civil rights activist who spoke freely about civil disobedience in the Letter from Birmingham Jail while he was locked up for civilly disobeying the law. He was writing to eight white clergymen that also felt that many of the laws were unjust, however they showed agreement with Socrates by stating that he should not disobey the laws. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “one has a moral responsibility to disobey just laws because if we did not disobey them then unjust acts would continue to occur, causing our country to be harmed”. He also stated that “an unjust law is no law at all”. Martin Luther King Jr. did believe that laws were setup and enforced to assist and support the residents of the state however, if a law was unfair or unconstitutional, then the law would

The negative sanction, such as imprisonment in MLK case, as a result of civil disobedience, will spark an awakening in the community. King Jr. believes that if one single individual can voluntarily accept the punishment for an action against injustice, it will benefit the community in society altogether. In addition, King Jr relies on religion to determine unjust vs just laws. According to MLK, “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God” (paragraph 21). MLK use religion as a method to appeal to the heavily religious south and persuade them to form part of the change in civil disobedience. King Jr, fights for the “Good Life” with the hope to unite society and advocate for white people and colored people who are not willing to perform civil disobedience due to fear or any other motive.

I trust Martin Luther King Jr's perspectives are the most conceivable, and I will bolster my case that Martin Luther King Jr's approach to manage regular rebellion of unjustifiable is the correct way. In “The Crito”, Socrates has a couple main arguments against breaking the law and civil disobedience that stuck out to me. Preserving the value of laws, the analogical arguments, and the appreciation arguments are Socrates' fundamental arguments. Saving the value of laws was basic to Socrates, for he trusted that on the off chance that he overstepped this one law, it would hurt whatever remains of the laws. His activities would then result in the ruin of the legal framework and government. Laws resemble cash; the estimation of them is not their

In the pursuit of social justice and civil rights, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, and Stokely Carmichael, sought to amend a flawed system. To accomplish this task, these men entered the armory and chose to wield nonviolence as their weapon. Their goal: to combat violence with nonviolence, to fight hate with love, and to spread equality through peace. In the end they succeeded. Violence breeds violence, hate breeds hate, it is an ineffective approach and an archaic mean to resolving societies issues. Malcolm X and Carmichael were both extreme individuals but that does not make them violent. They attacked social justice and civil rights passionately and assertively, not violently. The methods used

Not only were many laws changed and created, but even more were broken in an attempt to better our once unjust society. Martin Luther King Jr., arguably the most influential leader of this movement, was an avid supporter of civil disobedience during this era. He participated in countless sit-ins and protests, including the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1956, in which he and almost one hundred other activists were arrested for peacefully protesting discrimination in the Montgomery public transit system. In “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, written in 1963 after he was arrested for partaking in a nonviolent protest, King offers explanation as to why he practices civil disobedience and what he hopes to achieve in doing so. In this letter, King admits, “In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law…that would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty”. However, he also stated that in this fight, it is necessary to “[stand] up for what is best in the American…thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence”. In his words, civil disobedience is more than ignorance of law; it is just one of the necessary measures that must be taken to restore equality in a

Although King, Jr. took many steps beyond Thoreau's advocacies of civil disobedience, his actions rang true to the central theme of standing powerfully, and non-violently, against an unjust system of government. Both advocated disconnecting oneself from social law as to better follow the divine laws set forth by God, and despite the great diversity in which each man carried out his beliefs, the underlying fact still remains: "we cannot, by total reliance on law, escape the duty to judge right and wrong" (Alexander Bickel), the distinction between just and unjust rests on the shoulders of mankind and it remains the duty of each individual to act accordingly.