Martin Luther King And Socrates

King discusses the morals and types of laws, those “just and unjust”. By explaining laws and using reason to portray situations when laws can and should be broken, King guides the clergymen through his rationalization. To strengthen the sympathetic pathos in his letter, King discusses historical people and events and because something is legal, it doesn't make it moral, like segregation. He emphasizes that although everything Hitler did, such as murdering millions of Jews and cruel scientific experiments, was legal, it was not morally right. "It was illegal to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. But I am sure that if I had lived in Germany during that time I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers even though it was illegal." King is comparing American segregation to Hitler's anti-Semitic Germany. King quotes St. Augustine, “an unjust law is no law at all.” Because King comes off as being moral and fair, ethos is established. He is seen as an integral leader. Through this, King is able to argue why he links segregation to being an unjust law.

To understand King’s views on nonviolent protest, I will start by summarizing some of the main points in his “Letter from Birmingham jail”. In spite of the fact that the "Letter” is verifiably worried with justice all through, King likewise addresses the question specifically at a few focuses. In actuality, he places that justice maintains the poise of the human soul, while injustice conflicts with it. By talking about this idea by and large, he builds up criteria by which to obscurely assault both segregation and silence it. He at last suggests that the man who sees injustice and does nothing to stop it is acting unjustly also. Taking after this thought, he contends that laws must be permeated with an ethical sense so as to be just; as such, law and morality can not be viewed as independent interests or areas. The best way to really enact change and help humankind rise above its confinements is to act with as well as grasp “extremism”. According to Mott, “That this action had been termed “extreme” King admits “initially disappointed” him.” But King decides that if loyalty to good principles

There were many circumstances in the life of Socrates and Marin Luther King which reveals their approach towards changing the world. They took several measures to improve the lives of people but the worst thing is that there end was not good. They both died in the hands of injustice. Socrates said that people should believe on their own caliber and follow the truth rather than following the majority. MLK on the other hand elaborates the topic of just and unjust law and how it is related to the unjust law. Their approaches were not similar but their intentions were same. Now the main question is ‘Is there any way we can response to those various instances of social injustice? What are unjust law and application of unjust law and how should we

By comparing himself to the Greek hero Achilles before the jury in Plato’s Apology, Socrates attempts to portray himself as a hero of equal merit to Achilles and others of similar standing. By selecting the greatest of the Classical Greeks to compare and contrast himself to in his argument, Socrates surreptitiously urges his audience to view him as being of the same caliber as Achilles. This not only authenticates Socrates’ claims, but also exhibits his disconnect from earlier forms of thought. Essentially, Socrates attempts to display himself in the same light as his predecessor Achilles through their shared aspiration to do what they deem to be right in addition to their

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.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a key figure in the civil rights movements that took place in the 1950s and 1960s. The “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” is an open letter written by King defending nonviolent resistance against racism. The letter argued that people have a moral responsibility to break unjust and unethical laws. The letter also stresses themes of unity among brothers in order to overcome racism. I will argue in support of King’s stance that citizens are morally justified in breaking unjust laws and that openly and responsibly opposing unjust laws is itself a duty of every citizen.

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.

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." Martin Luther King's words, which just correspond with the above assertion, perfectly tell us what to do in face of laws, either just or unjust.

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.

Martin Luther King Jr., was a civil rights activist who spoke freely about civil disobedience in the Letter from Birmingham Jail while he was locked up for civilly disobeying the law. He was writing to eight white clergymen that also felt that many of the laws were unjust, however they showed agreement with Socrates by stating that he should not disobey the laws. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “one has a moral responsibility to disobey just laws because if we did not disobey them then unjust acts would continue to occur, causing our country to be harmed”. He also stated that “an unjust law is no law at all”. Martin Luther King Jr. did believe that laws were setup and enforced to assist and support the residents of the state however, if a law was unfair or unconstitutional, then the law would

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.

Throughout history, there have been many unjust laws. Most people follow laws just because they are laws and do not want to surfer any consequences for breaking a law. Sometimes people don't even agree with a law, but they go along because it's societally acceptable or because it's just the law. I think that by writing the "Letter from Birmingham Jail", King is putting forward the definition of an unjust laws, he is impeaching his readers to consider whether or not a law is just. However, it should be the responsibility of the people to challenge an unjust law in order for others to see how it is a harm to a human personality and needs to be

Imagine the feeling of sitting in room isolated from the rest of the world, left alone with your thoughts and kept guarded away from freedom. What would one with their spare time? Would one contemplate escape? Would one sit alone with their thoughts and fixate on what has led to such a lonely end? Would one compose a letter to those who detained them? Perhaps these are the same thoughts that inspired the words of Socrates, in Plato’s Crito or the emotional words that were spewed on paper by Dr. Martin Luther King while detained in Birmingham Jail. The philosophy of Socrates and Dr. Martin Luther King are grounded in peace. Both philosophers are faced with conflict from the laws put in place by the society that they are in. The purpose of this essay is to compare how each philosopher discusses the concept of law. The fictional tales of Socrates was inspiration to the belated Dr. King as he strived to challenge the status quo set for society. Throughout Plato’s poems Socrates constantly stretched the mental capabilities of those who conversed, and at times even challenged him. Dr. King was not fearful of “Causing tension to the mind” of those around him. In particular Dr. King challenged his ideals of those who opposed his approach of nonviolent protesting. In “The letter from a Birmingham Jail” Dr. King response to a clergyman in form of a letter. This letter expresses the many obstacles put in front of Dr. King as he strives to create an equal society for African-American or

However, after King demonstrated how a law is unjust, he makes his position clear concerning breaking laws. King was aware of his audiences' "disproval" of breaking laws. According to King in this letter he doesn't advocate evading or defying the law, and he found it very important that his audience see these facts clearly. It is critical for King to

Although King, Jr. took many steps beyond Thoreau's advocacies of civil disobedience, his actions rang true to the central theme of standing powerfully, and non-violently, against an unjust system of government. Both advocated disconnecting oneself from social law as to better follow the divine laws set forth by God, and despite the great diversity in which each man carried out his beliefs, the underlying fact still remains: "we cannot, by total reliance on law, escape the duty to judge right and wrong" (Alexander Bickel), the distinction between just and unjust rests on the shoulders of mankind and it remains the duty of each individual to act accordingly.