Legal vs, Justice

"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."

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

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.

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.

As per above analysis, therefore, I strongly agree with assertion that laws can be classified as just and unjust. Yet, a far more important issue to talk about later is what people should do in face of just of unjust laws.

King brings in the question, what is a just and unjust law? A just law is one that promotes good morals and is followed by both the majority as well as the minority of society. Martin Luther King Jr. defines an unjust law as:

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.

Examples of __just_________(just/unjust) laws can first be found in the area of Family Law.(family law, property law, personal law). A quotation of Family Law’’if a son has struck his father,his hands

Some socio cultural rules that are totally irrelevant must be breached, if not it shall create stymies for people who want to live freely. As our societies are concerned we are barely allowed to do intercaste marriages, polygamy else our fate of living or not is depicted by the society even if our family accepts it. Unjust laws do exist in the society, but that has to be removed slowly rather than protesting and making a mess out of everything. Most of the times breaking the laws becomes a must: when u go impecunious and your wife is dying because u cannot afford the drug to cure her and for that if you steal the drug, such cases can be justified morally. Yes, the person surely has to get punished but the punishment can be reduced to minimum as that ‘stealing’ was for a purpose and such reasons seem clearly justifiable.

A law is said to be just when it is ordained for the common good, does not exceed the power of the lawgiver and any burdens put on the subjects are done proportionally and equally and aim for the common good (Aquinas in Dimock, ed., 2002, p.20). In comparison an unjust law can be contrary to the human good and additionally opposing to the divine good. A law can conflict with the human good in one of three ways; either through its end, author or its form. A lawmaker issues an unjust law according to its end when he “imposes on his subjects burdensome laws, conducive not to the common good, but rather to his own cupidity or vainglory” (Aquinas in Dimock, ed., 2002, p.20). If a lawmaker imposes a law that favors the leader but at the same time imposes unfair burdens on the whole of society, it can be assumed that he is working for his glory and selfish desires.

Our justice system regularly makes decisions that would be universally considered just and in the very same day makes decisions that are universally considered unjust. Based on this, justice must be more about the intention. For the sake of argument imagine a judge who intends with every fiber of his being to be just, makes a decision that in the end turns out to be unjust. I would say this man could still be considered just. Regardless of the outcome, the intention should determine the question of just or unjust. If that same judge admits his mistake and does his best to rectify the situation, he would certainly be considered just. On the other hand if he realizes the mistake and does nothing then he is most unjust. Human beings are incapable of unfailing justice, but when you intend to be just, you should then be considered a just person. So justice must be the intention of the person or entity to pursue truth and fairness.

‘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?'

Justice comes in many form, economically, politically, and culturally. Justice has been explored and has posed with different definition in many eras. It is subjective to everyone and no two people has the same feeling. Individuals throughout society have their own distinctive explanation for justice. A truly just society can happen, but it will never be in a way where everyone will agree. I believe a just society stands with a strong leader that focuses on a unified cultural change in their country for the benefit of the people. King and Machiavelli both pursues a just society with equality between any race, unity, and are an open-minded leader.

Over the decades, the concept of justice has been continually evolving. This is occurring based upon different moral or legal interpretations. Evidence of this can be seen with observations from Burke (2011) who said, "Few things are of more importance to a society than its concept of justice. This is because it is justice that provides criterion for the legitimate use of force. In the name of justice people are detained, arrested, handcuffed, put on trial and punished. This concept is used to provide every society with some kind of social order. Over the last 200 years, a revolution has taken place with these principles. Our idea of it is what we employ, when dealing with ordinary individuals in daily life including: making agreements, paying bills, resolving disputes and putting criminals in jail. This is a concept that is as old as recorded history and it is familiar to people everywhere. What makes it so unique is that these ideas are constantly changing which focuses on society as a whole and how people are interacting with each other. " (Burke)