Is It Right To Break Light Law Analysis

At times it is necessary to break the law for justice to prevail.The quote “You want me to go to prison for nothing just so the Wisharts can say goodbye properly?..I’m

"There are just laws and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that an unjust law is no law at all... One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly...I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law."

What is law? Law is a system of rules used to govern a society and control the behaviors of its members. In this case, Martin Luther King is charged for breaking a law. King questions the differences between just and unjust laws to justify his actions in Birmingham and the charges of breaking laws willingly. Defending his willingness to break laws, King argues, “How can you advocate breaking laws and obeying other?” He answers to accusation of his willingness to break laws with a well-written argument of what is just and unjust laws. Martin Luther King uses the definition, the categories, and the implication of the law excellently to answer the charges of breaking laws willingly.

King categorizes law into two types: just and unjust. He describes a just law as a “man-made code” that falls in line with moral law while an unjust law is one that deviates from moral law. King claims that just laws can uplift people while unjust ones degrade them. In stating these ideas, King provides his audience with his own definition of what laws are and what they can do. The reader can now apply this definition to attain a better understanding of King’s ideology and better connect with King’s larger purpose of the letter. King also examines laws that in method are fair but in practice are oppressive. This helps make his definition be more complete by presenting a multitude of ways a law can be unjust. He shows that laws can be unjust in writing and in application. King explains his criteria for just and unjust laws in order to move his argument forward in answering the criticisms of his fellow clergymen.

Disobeying a law naturally seems counter-intuitive to fixing a problem. This idea is very Socratic in nature. Socrates believed that it was a great disservice to the state to follow laws that were unjust. “I was attached to this city by the god . . . as upon a great and noble horse (the state in this case) which was sluggish because of its size and needed to be stirred up by a kind of gadfly” (Apology, 30e, Plato). According to Socrates, “pursing virtue and truth in the name of the state” (Apology, 42a Plato) is necessary and actions such as civil disobedience are also necessary in order to find that virtue and truth at times. Both King and Socrates were “gadflies” in the sense that they were willing to question and bring tension to laws that were unjust and needed to be changed. This tension brings along the willingness to fix the laws and make them just. Settling for a “negative

Imagine a world without those brave people who dared to not abide by the law and fight for a right. A world without Gandhi would be a world without independent India; without Mandela there would be white superiority in Africa; without freedom fighters, there would be no democracy in Nepal. I believe that all the actions of such law breakers are good, even though they were against various laws, and such actions can be justified to some extent. Even though laws are meant to maintain order and protect rights, it is not always justified; some might be unfair to minorities whereas others might stir up a revolution. Some just violate human rights. In such cases, civil disobedience

In the text King uses a load of logos to appeal to his audiences logic and open their eyes to see what is really happening. In paragraphs fifteen and sixteen King begins to use logos to get his audience to begin thinking about the just and unjust laws. King says one of his most impressive statements, in my opinion, in paragraph 16,”one has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” When he states this, King is getting is audience to begin considering the laws that he is requesting them to follow and the laws that are being broken and the difference between the two. The argument that King is trying to win here is the topic that they should not be breaking laws if they are going to be asking for laws to be made and changed, he is saying that there is a difference in laws that suppress one group and allow another to flourish and laws that give everyone equal opportunity to live the American Dream. To give more backing and

state, and to break the law would be repaying evil with evil. This notion is

Martin Luther King used the same idea of unjust laws to justify his actions and nonviolent campaigns. He used this idea to answer the question of how he can support the breaking of some laws, but not others? His simple answer was that there are two types of laws, just and unjust, and "an unjust law is no law at all." (80). He goes on to quote St. Thomas Aquinas, ."..Any law that uplifts personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust." (80) and says that any individual that breaks an unjust law and accepts the punishment of imprisonment actually has the "highest respect for the law." (81). King makes a very strong point in distinguishing just and unjust laws to advocate his actions, just like Stanton and Anthony do in their address.

An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.? The Clergymen express great concern over King is willingness to break laws. King replies that this is an understandable concern since everyone follows the Supreme Court Decision of 1954 that states; public schools are not to be segregated. In other words King is saying the Supreme Court can hand down a just law and yet people do not obey it but yet they expect me to obey an unjust law. In Germany under Adolf Hitler every thing he did was ?legal? and the freedom fighters in Hungry did everything ?illegally?. Aiding a Jew under Hitler was considered ?illegal?. Because these things were legal did that make it right? No. Should people have obeyed these laws? No. These laws were made to suppress a group of people simple because of there religion. This is much like the segregation in the United States is it right because it is the law? No. Should these laws be followed? No.

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 were times in history when breaking the law was justified: great leaders like Gandhi and Martin Luther King broke the law and changed the world for the better.

Have you ever felt a rule you had to follow was unjust? Have you ever felt your moral instinct tell you not to follow it? Prominent figures in American history, Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau, felt this way and decided to not follow the rules imposed on them by indulging in “civil disobedience”. Civil disobedience is the act of peacefully disobeying laws or customs with the purpose of combating moral injustice. This form of protest has proven to be quite effective in making change in history. In “Civil Disobedience” and the “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, both Thoreau and King Jr. write their justification for their actions as well as their feelings regarding the particular disputed

By this statement King proved that in its application an unjust law can oppose a just law. Nevertheless, in this circumstance the just law is the First-Amendment right to peaceful assembly and protest and the unjust law prohibits one group of people from obtaining this right as a citizen of the United States of America. From this point King's appeal to reason carefully merges into an appeal to character.

“We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal’, and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was ‘illegal.’” -Martin Luther King Jr. This quote shows how unfair the justice system is/was. If you were to do something horrible, you wouldn’t be punished for it. But if you do something wonderful, you have consequences.