Similarities Between Socrates And Martin Luther King

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

In this reading Plato tells the story of Socrates and his trial which ultimately lead to his death sentence. Socrates was a 70 year old man at peace with his own mortality yet willing to face his accusers with an almost definite possibility of death to maintain his own integrity and beliefs and morality. He fully understood from the beginning of his trial what the sentence handed down would be yet on a level of honor and courage not seen in abundance in modern society he maintained his stance and delivered a compelling and convincing argument. He openly stated that he knew his actions had offended Meletus and

Martin Luther and Martin Luther King Jr. are incredible individuals in the history of the world. And both have contributed a significant amount of knowledge and influence that have changed the lives of many individuals, and even today is being studied and researched. These two great individuals have more in common than many people know, and that resides in their names respectively. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birth name was Michael and not Martin. His father Martin Sr. traveled to Germany and was inspired by Martin Luther and his philosophies and teachings. He was inspired so much that he adopted his moniker of “Martin Luther”.

First, he said a leader must be liked by enough of his people to avoid any type of uprising. He believed that anyone who spoke out against the prince must be gotten rid of. This is a major violation of one’s rights and something Socrates would have been outraged by. Plato starts The Apology by discussing how Socrates would teach the youth about his ideal government while openly criticizing the government of Athens. Socrates believed this type of free speech was necessary to form a fair and moral nation. Socrates also uses his trial as a symbol of free speech as he continued to speak out against the government there. He certainly would not have supported Machiavelli’s attempts to suppress free speech. Socrates goes so far as to say, “I made my defense speech like this: I much prefer to die having made my defense speech in this way than to live in that way” (The Apology 20). Here we see that Socrates is willing to die if it means he can speak freely. He truly thought free speech was the only way to check the government’s power and for the people to have a voice. At the time of his trial, speaking out against the Athenian government was almost unheard of and was considered a form of treason. Socrates wanted to use his trial as a way to criticize his leaders in the hope that more people would follow his lead. He believed free speech was necessary to

So to sum up the trial, the charges against him were officially two, corrupting the youth and impiety. The two charges were, of course, linked, and, in the relevant senses, he was, we must admit, guilty of at least one of them. For his effect on the lives of the young men who followed him was indeed disrupting, and even corrupting, of the social order. What his followers learned from him above all else, is to do two things. They learned to scrutinize, and they learned to be skeptical. It was not that they mindlessly adopted a motto like "trust no one over 30," or that they became, like many of today 's young people, contrary simply for the sake of being contrary. Rather, they learned not to take on authority or on faith what others told them about virtue, justice, or piety; they were seeking, as was Socrates himself, the truth of the matter and the reasons for taking it to be the truth of the matter. And as we all know, the relentless pursuit of the truth produces enemies. A Socrates may in the long run serve mankind, but in the short run he aggravates virtually everyone around him.

Part of this ties into the fact that Socrates convinces not only his followers but to the jury that contrary to popular belief, he knows nothing. At the beginning of the Apology, he states that “I am wiser than this human being. For probably neither of us knows anything noble and good, but he supposes he knows something when he does not know, while I, just as I do not know, do not even suppose that I do. I am likely to be a little bit wiser than he in this very thing: that whatever I do not know, I do not even suppose I know”. (21d). His humility and modesty are outwardly distinguishably from this very speech alone. If one feels as if they do not have the abilities to rebel against the laws of the land by way of committing political atrocities, they are more than likely to a.) avoid rebellion and b.) respect the laws. Respecting the laws is the exact principle that Socrates stood by. Even if Socrates knew nothing as he claimed, what he did know was that obligation to the law was fundamental. Though he didn’t know anything, he knew that authority for the law was the foundation of a prosperous

Socrates argues that it’s unjust to break the law even if people think the law is wrong because those are merely opinions. He believes that one should never harm others and breaking the law is going against the government and compared it to a child disobeying his parents. He will never go against the foundation of the state and government. He provides three reasons to defend the state: “the state is responsible for the very existence of the individual, parents wouldn’t have met and children would never have been bored”, the state nurtures and aids in building one’s character by providing no education, books, writing or culture, the state establishes law and order and without it, there would be no justice”.

Although Socrates was wrongly imprisoned and waiting the death penalty, which he acknowledges, he, according to his argument, is not permitted to act unjustly in return, or break the law. Pertaining to justice, the laws to Socrates are the most important and in order to keep the city functioning as he states in the dialogue, “in comparison with [one’s] mother and father and all [one’s] forebears, [the] fatherland is more precious and venerable, more sacred and held in higher esteem among gods, as well as among human beings who have any sense” (Plato 39). Again, Martin Luther King Jr. departs from Socrates’ view in that he argues that those laws that are unjust need to be broken in a civil way, in order to direct consideration of their shortcomings. According to King, “one has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws [and] one has a

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.

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

“I have a dream, that one day little black boys and black girls will join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sister and brother.” (de Kay 75)…Martin Luther King Jr.

Throughout history, across time and space, there have been many thinkers whose teachings and ideas have inspired significant changes in the world around them. From Socrates and Sir Isaac Newton to Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein, certain individuals throughout history have had both the brainpower and the motivation to essentially change the future, using their new ideas and beliefs to shape the world's next generations into individuals who were, and continue to be, more informed than the last. Who could imagine modern life without the knowledge that these individuals provided us? As with all worldly change, many of these thinkers' views and methods were challenged, but in never backing down, many of these teachings, and certainly the names of the individuals behind them, have stood the test of time, as seen in viewing two of history's most noted thinkers, Immanuel Kant and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Plato’s account of Socrates’ defense against charges of corrupting the youth and heresy, reveal the ancient teacher’s view of justice as fairness and support of rule of law. In the Apology, Socrates faces a moral dilemma: to either accept his punishment for crimes he did not commit or to accept the assistance of his friends and escape death by the hand of the state. His choice to accept death in order to maintain rule of law reveals his belief of justice. He beliefs his punishment to be just not because he committed the crimes but because his sentence came through a legal process to which he consented. By sparing his life, he would weaken the justice system of Athens which he values above his own existence. This difference between the two men’s beliefs regarding justice draws the sharpest contrast in their views of effective leadership and government.

Socrates, however, was not trying to make the youth go against the laws. In fact, Socrates told his followers that they should live by the laws because the laws were needed. As in the Crito, Socrates mentions that to go against the laws would be the wrong thing to do. The society of Athens, made laws for the people to follow. These laws were made to keep order. Socrates understood and respected that the laws

They wished for him to formally apologize or the result would be death. The court protested that if he stopped teaching his theory, then the charges against him would be dropped and he would not have the ultimate punishment, being death. Socrates believed that his argument could be sensibly defended without death being the penalty, which is why his apology ceases to apologize for insulting the wise men. He tells the court "if I was bound to be acquitted....you are bound to put me to death, because if I were to escape, all your children would forthwith be utterly corrupted by practicing what Socrates teaches..."(78). Inevitably he dies for protesting the court's wishes to stop teaching his beliefs.