Essay Just and Unjust Laws: Should the Unjust Laws be Obeyed?

there are two types of laws: just and unjust." He also explains that he " .

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.

Another interesting view put forth is that justice may not necessarily mean taking revenge and punishing those who go against the society but it means that in doing so, the innocent must not suffer and that every accused must be given an opportunity to fair trial and fair procedure in determination of their guilt.

However, he then distinguishes between just and unjust laws, insisting that an individual has both a right and a responsibility to break unjust laws. He defines just laws as those that uphold human dignity, and unjust laws as those that “degrade human personality.” Unjust laws, he argues, hurt not only the oppressed, but also the oppressors, since they are given a false sense of superiority.

MLK even covers the fact that some laws are just on the surface, but unjust in how they are enforced. The example of his imprisonment proves this statement. He was arrested for parading without a permit, but this is an unjust law because it promotes segregation and denies basic constitutional rights to freedom of speech and assembly (659). He uses these soulful explanations of just and unjust laws trying to appeal to his readers’ emotions, though the notion of just and unjust laws may seem logical to them as well.

“Shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? (Thoreau 184).” The choice of acting upon unjust laws is up to the person whether they want to follow with what they believe is morally right no matter the consequences. Thoreau, for example, was arrested for not paying poll taxes for six years. Thoreau peacefully served his time in his night in jail, having known beforehand the consequences for his actions, yet he went along and committed the crime. Even though the crime Thoreau committed didn’t harm anyone, it made a general statement to what he stood for, that government cannot change his beliefs and make him follow laws that are unjust to him. “When I meet a government which says to me, "Your money or your life," why should I be in haste to give it my money? It may be in a great strait, and not know what to do: I cannot help that. It must help itself; do as I do. It is not worth the while to snivel about it. I am not responsible for the successful working of the machinery of society.(Thoreau

     Any one can say that a law is unfair and unjust. However, who is really willing to accept the consequences for going against an unjust law? Is breaking this law really worth the punishment? The government is the one to decide whether a law is reasonable, but what if a member of the public believes that a law is not? Should he rebel against this law? Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. answered yes to this question and believed that one should speak out against an injustice. They both believed that government had many flaws. Even though they shared many beliefs in many of the same subjects concerning Civil Disobedience, they had many different

concentrates that law is purely used to promote good by the state. Furthermore, law should

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.

Breaking the law is morally justifiable and acceptable when the law in itself is iniquitous and if that law violates human rights and conscience; Certainly, rules are established for us to follow but we as human beings should be able to differentiate the right and the wrong and incase laws need to be violated for the right cause even with hard consequences, breaking the law can be justified; considering the situations and the purposes.

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

‘Must we only obey a just law; should we obey a law because it is just to do so; or else can we not obey at all?'

-There were many things that stood out to me in this video. One of the most intriguing comments was the one that Martin Luther King’s niece quoted from his speech: “If a law is unjust, it is our moral responsibility to resist the unjust law.” I actually went back and listened to it a few times and decided to write it down. I really do like this quote and it has a lot of meaning, but the problem I have is what is ‘unjust’? To me unjust could mean something, but to somebody I pass on the street, unjust could mean something totally different. I think the whole video has a great idea, but one guy in it said “there is no fundamental agreement on the way the world works”, and I completely agree with this. There is no agreement across the board on right and wrong. Another guy mentioned we follow our conscience and integrity, which I also agree with 100%, but again, there is no common ground.