Is Malcolm X's Unjust To Break The Law?

Dr. King and Malcolm X strived to achieve equality for blacks under the law, more specifically, voting rights, desegregation, and more representation in government and politics. However, both men differed immensely in their tactics and strategies. For Dr. King, the negotiations could be brought about by the persistence of a nonviolent plan where, the oppressed people’s determination would overcome the will of the oppressor in the hearts and minds of the nation. He firmly believed in the principles of Mahatma Gandhi’s method of nonviolence resistance, which had been successful in driving the British out of India. For example, according to King, one of the resisters, or black mans goals is not to humiliate the opponent, (the white man) but to win his friendship and understanding. Dr. King proposed a passive resistance, based on “the conviction that the universe is on the side of justice” (“Pilgrimage to Non Violence” King, 112). He claimed the center of nonviolence is based on the principle of love, or understanding. Dr. King emphasized that the white man should not be held responsible for the minorities and blacks being oppressed. Here is where the two leaders oppose each other. Malcolm X felt social injustice and racism had endured too long, and it was

King was an inspiration to all! I agree with Mr. King’s philosophy of civil disobedience and nonviolence. I agree with this because then you are just hating the enemy. I don’t think that you should fight hate with hate. If we fight like this then the result will just be even more hate. I think that Mr. King thought that we should fight peace with hate so that in the end peaceful will overpower the hate. MLK once said , “ I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.” Mr.King was also very brave to stand up for what he believed in and continuing to do this even after the threats he was getting. Know matter how bad he was being treated by white people he still picked up his head. Another quote that relates to what I am saying was also by MLK. “ Let no man pull you low enough to hate him.” - Martin Luther

Socrates placed his philosophical way of thinking above the laws; therefore his moral conviction to always to the right thing led him to follow them and in turn he demonstrated that he had chosen the path with the justest decision. The laws of the time had convicted Socrates of impiety, therefore inherently the law did not agree with him. Although there is great respect between the two entities of citizen and law, they do not automatically agree with each other, rather both are constantly in a pursuit to promote justice. What the citizen's version of justice might be may differ entirely than the law, showing Socrates independence and superiority to the law but respect to the greater good of society and the

Malcolm X used violence as a way to get more black rights and to hopefully lead up to black supremacy. Dr. Martin L King Jr used non violence protesting as a way to symbol that people standing up for their rights are not wrong or barbaric, but the people who are stopping these nonviolent protests look bad because there is no physical harm being done. Malcolm X states, “This is why I say it’s the ballot or the bullet. It’s liberty or it’s death” (The Ballot or the Bullet). This describes Malcolm X warning that if black people are not allowed suffrage and other rights, then there is going to be violence and death involved to have those rights granted. Malcolm X is showing that he is not afraid to have a violent revolution if there has to be one. Dr. King however states, “We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must ride to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force” (I Have A Dream). Martin Luther King Jr is trying to persuade others that a violent protest will only hurt, not help in getting equality and that a peaceful, powerful protest will ensure smoother integration and peace. Dr. King is promoting the opposite of Malcolm X by saying peace is power whereas Malcolm X is trying to bring forth the

In his third premise, Socrates argues that men must do what they believe to be right, and keep their agreements. Socrates argues that he is under an agreement with the state to abide by their laws, and that escaping would be breaking their agreement, thereby knowingly doing wrong. He concludes that if he were to escape he would be breaking agreements and purposely doing wrong, and therefore would not be living justly and honorably, and not be living a good life. For these reasons he decides that he can not escape jail.

It is natural for most people to obey the law, because of the consequences that come with it. Socrates is stuck in prison, and his friend Crito came to bail him out. Instead of happily following Crito, Socrates interrogated his friend to why this was a good idea. The laws are there for a reason, and breaking them could not end well. Socrates does not believe in breaking the laws; he states several reasons why it is important to follow them.

More importantly, Socrates’s relationship to the state is made clear during the dialogue with his friend Crito, when speaking as if Socrates is the state himself. When asking how important the state is, the law asks; “Is your…country to be honored more than…all your ancestors…that it counts for more among the gods and sensible men, that you must worship it…?” Rather than a statement, Socrates makes his point that the law must be upheld, even in his case of a death sentence. It is important to note that Socrates accepted his fate, even though he felt the accusations against him were false. Yet, as if speaking on behalf of the law, recognized that escaping would only turn those untruthful indictments into the truth, and as a destroyer of laws; “You will strengthen the conviction of the jury that they passed the right sentence on you.” By the definition of the word martyr, as one who dies for a cause, in this instance the laws of the state,

In the Crito, Socrates believes that breaking the laws of the city harms all of society. The consequences of escaping the city outweigh the benefits for it puts his family, his friends, and himself in danger. He believes in a personal morality that one must live a good and just life, and not just any life. If Socrates breaks the law then he would not be acting justly,

In paragraph 24 King states, "Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?" He acknowledges that for his movement he is called an extremist, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's an outrageous person. Fighting for what you believe in whether positive or negative will always be considered extreme and unjust if the side who opposes you doesn't believe in what you're fighting for, which is what King faced a lot in his movement. He wanted to provide a sense of empathy for the churches, white people, and others who didn't support his cause. The people he wanted to empathize with him and his fellow others were as he said, not able to help and show conformity because of the apparent fear of 'social neglect'. Trying to heighten people's fears of hypocrisy to not help him in his desire need for civil rights helped him inflict the purpose of the right thing to do by using an emotional

To Socrates laws only have meaning because the people give them meaning and only by following the laws do we see the actual value of them. According to Socrates the relationship of the people and the states are like that of a child and their parents. He claims that state raises the people by guiding them with laws giving them order and educates the people of what’s right and what’s wrong. Socrates does not believe in disobeying the law to set examples as you would not disobey your parents just to prove a point. Socrates is appreciative for what state has done for him and feels as if it is his duty and obligation to repay them or show gratitude to the state by following its laws.

In Plato’s Crito, Socrates talks about his obligations to follow the law. Although Socrates understands that the Athenian democracy has committed an unjust action by sentencing him to death, he is unwilling to escape with Crito. He understands that an injustice should not be answered with injustice, but there are times when one should question the law. In Socrates’ Defense and the Crito, Plato discusses when one ought to follow the law and when ought to not follow the law. One not only has the obligations to follow the law, but they are also obliged to break the law if it is unjust because it will then improve The Law.

Malcolm X and Dr. King faced disunity in violence during the civil rights movement. Dr. King encouraged peaceful protests, and does not see obligation in violence to get a point across. “What is needed is a strategy for change, a tactical program which will bring the Negro into the mainstream of American life as quickly as possible. So far, this has only been offered by the nonviolent movement.” (Nonviolence: The Only Road to Freedom p.g 3) Dr. King says that nobody should use self-defense if assualted during demonstration. That everyone should assume that there is a risk, and it would be contradicting to retaliate during a peaceful movement. “It is as ridiculous for a Negro to raise the question of self-defense in relation to nonviolence as it is for a soldier on the battlefield to say his is not going to take any risks. He is there because he believes that the freedom of his country is worth the risk of his life. The same is true of the nonviolent demonstrator. He sees the misery of his people so clearly that he volunteers to suffer in their behalf and put an end to their plight.” (Nonviolence: The Only Road to Freedom p.g 4) Malcolm’s attitude to violence is that anyone that is taking what belongs to you like your civil rights and freedom is a criminal. It is under your legal right to claim what is

To this question, first Socrates says that he should not revenge injustice. Because doing injustice is bad in any circumstances (Crito 49b), to return injustice just because of having injustice done onto himself would bad also (Crito 49c). Therefore Socrates should not commit injustice just to get even with Athens. Injustice is bad because it harms, and disobedience to the law would harm the city (Crito 50b); so it seems that to disobey the law would be an injustice. But why should Socrates obey the law of the city? Socrates reasons that since the city has done him great benefactions, such as giving birth to his life, taking care of his physical upbringing and his education, and granting him long years of benefits from the legal system (Crito 50e - 51c), Socrates owns the state a strong duty of gratitude just as a child would own to his father. One of those duties is to obey the state (like how a child obeys his parents), which always has included the possibility of death such as in times of war (Crito 51b). Socrates should obey the city because he has made an agreement to do so. This agreement is the social contract that he has implicitly accepted and lived under for 70 years. This contract is legitimate because Socrates had a thorough understanding of the legal system (Crito 51e - 52a), he did not leave the city when he was given the fair chance all his life (Crito 51 c-e), and that he

He also explains to Crito that the citizen is bound to the laws like a child is bound to a parent, and so to go against the laws would be like striking a parent. Rather than simply break the laws and escape, Socrates should try to persuade the laws to let him go. These laws present the citizen's duty to them in the form of a kind of social contract. By choosing to live in Athens, a citizen is endorsing the laws, and is willing to follower by them. Therefore, if he was to break from prison now, having so consistently validated the social contract, he would be making himself an outlaw who would not be welcome in any other civilized state for the rest of his life. Furthermore when he dies, he will be harshly judged in the underworld for behaving unjustly toward his city's laws. In this way, Socrates chooses not to attempt escape but he dies as a martyr, not for himself, but for his city and its system of justice.

Socrates would rather be punished or die before he breaks the laws that were set forth by his state, and this he says later in the same passage, “I should run any risk on the side of law and justice rather than join you. (Cahn pg. 38 Apology b10-c2).”