Just Vs Unjust

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

Both Hobbes and Locke were writers who developed philosophies on humans being naturally good or bad. Locke believed that, "Man is by nature a social animal". This humans feel compelled to live in social environments. Hobbes believed that, "Society could not exist without the power of the state". This means that society needs the higher power of the state to keep it together. Locke believed that people are naturally good, whereas Hobbes believed that people were not naturally good. Locke said that in the sense of natural law, "Humans know what is right and wrong, and are capable of knowing what is lawful and unlawful well enough to resolve conflicts". Hobbes said that the ruler is the one who defined right and wrong. The reason why Hobbes had

He started American Civil Rights Movement, in order to spread equality among the people of United States. There was huge protest against racial discrimination and social segregation in the southern part of United States. He explained Just laws and Unjust application of Law. Unjust laws are those laws which are not based on morality whereas unjust application of law refers to the law which is against justice, implemented on someone else. MLK along with few other people started a movement in which they violated unjust law and he did that by starting civil disobedience movement. While staying in jail Martin Luther king expresses his opinion on being criticized by the clergymen’s. He talks about the Southern Cristian leadership conference and its operation in south. Later, he gives the moral reason of staying in Birmingham, to fight against injustice. He took the path of non-violence to bring back the rights. There were four basic steps involved in this nonviolence campaign, collection of facts, negotiation, self-purification and direct action. He gave the difference between just law and unjust law, just laws are those laws which raises humans’ personality whereas unjust laws brings down an individual’s personality. A law is said to be unjust if a minority group has to obey the majority. In non-violence resistance he said that freedom is always demanded by the oppressed. He focuses on the creative

     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.

Locke seems to build upon Hobbes' ideals describing within the law of Nature, all men are equal and are in a state of perfect freedom to order their own actions. However, it seems Locke clearly understands mans desire for more and temptation to violate human rights of others for personal gain and therefore, inevitable disputes in which life, liberty, and property are in question, laws are established to protect and uphold ones rights. Locke divulges further by stating the law of nature confirms every one has a right to punish transgressors of law to such a degree in which it may hinder violations, preserve the innocent and restrain offenders (Newton, 2004). This is where Locke separates himself from Hobbes theories. Locke concedes punishment only to a degree whereas will hinder a transgressor and only restrain an offender. This should not be confused with Hobbes philosophy of an individual having the right to pass judgement and decide a transgressors fate, once a perceived threat has been subdued. Locke's philosophy seems to indicate a vital importance to exhibit reason and tolerance; a law of morals, unlike Thomas Hobbes philosophical view of do as you please because it is your natural right. John Locke's law of morals set forth Thomas Jefferson's theory of revolution.

Martin Luther King’s legal theory can be understood with a brief description of the legal theory known as Natural Law. According to Natural Law Legal Theory (not to be confused with Natural Law Moral Theory), the law is a set standard for all citizens to act according to. People, however, have the capacity

Martin Luther King Jr. was an amazing man, when he was giving the I Have a Dream speech he acknowledged about how everyone should receive getting treated exactly the same, along with having the same rights. He also protested about how blacks live matter. He was a very powerful man to tell everyone what he feels is right, how blacks are people too, and should have the same privileges as all Americans do. I agree with him because everyone was created by God and no one is more privileged than others, so racism should stop know by the help of all of humanity working together.

Martin Luther King had a big goal or a dream to get the colored people civil rights. Martin Luther King (MLK) was tolerant, he had what not everyone has, patient. Martin Luther King was patient, thinking that he could help the African American get their right back with the help of his personal experience and some of the help of the bible.

Thomas Hobbes believe that people are wicked, selfish and cruel. “Every man is for themselves”. He think people are born with the rights that they relinquish to the monarch in return for protection. People could not be trusted to govern themselves, because people had no say so in their government, they could do nothing if the monarch was abusive. He also believes the purpose of the government is to keep law and order On the other hand, John Locke believes that all people are born with unalienable rights. He thinks people can be trusted to govern themselves if they provide with the right information they can make good decisions. Locke believes the purpose of the of government is to protect individuals liberties and rights.

John Locke believed that people can be trusted to govern themselves, because they are naturally good. On the other hand, Thomas Hobbes believed that people are naturally selfish, and that they should give all their power to one man or one assembly, which is absolute monarchy. However, Locke believed that governments each had their own responsibilities to protect their citizens’ lives and their freedom. Despite all of their differences and beliefs, both Hobbes

Hobbes believed that the only true and correct form of government was the absolute monarchy, while Locke believed in free constitutionalism and human nature. In their book, Leadership- Enhancing the Lessons

Locke and Hobbes are two very similar people with different types of believes in the government. They are both social contract theorists and natural law theorists. Locke was the one who was more on the positive side about things, and Hobbes tended to see things more negatively. For example, the human nature issue, Locke thought that “Man is by nature a social animal.” Hobbes on the other hand, thought that “Man is not by nature a social animal, society could not exist by the power of the state.” Locke and Hobbes are complete opposites when it comes to the government.

Hobbes and Locke both had some what of the same ideas. Both Hobbes and Locke were inspired by Grotius’ idea of a political contract based in natural law. It influenced the both of the England philosophers. Both men took up the urgent question of human rights versus the sovereignty of the ruler. Both rejected the principle of divine right monarchy and instead advanced their idea that the government shall be based in a social contract. Where as Hobbes believed that the social contract was a covenant among individuals who surrendered some of their freedom to a higher authority or ruler. Locke agreed that the government must be formed by a contract, but he also believed that the power must remain with the ruled. Hobbes saw all humans as selfish,

Hobbes believes for violence and politics were very unique and particular. He had an idea that the authority should be obeyed at all times regardless of us liking or agreeing to what we are being asked to do. Hobbed, Locke, and Rousseau shared the same ideas on the authority power over us. They believed those who were chosen to govern had the right to lead in the way they felt

John Locke, an English philosopher, shared some of the same ideas that Hobbes possessed. Locke believed in the power of a government to preserve freedom, but he also believed in overthrowing any government that violated a citizen’s rights, and as a solution, getting a new government competent for the duty of serving the people. Locke also believed in freedom by nature. “Everyone has a natural right to life, liberty, and property.” Locke believed in men preserving their own “civil interest,” by those he means life, liberty, health, and the possession of land, money, houses, and such things. He believed that all men are free by nature, and that “no private person has any right in any manner to prejudice another person in his civil enjoyments.” Locke also believes that God gave men the world to make use of it, therefore he values so much the right to property.