Unjust Laws

Socrates placed his philosophical way of thinking above the laws; therefore his moral conviction to always to the right thing led him to follow them and in turn he demonstrated that he had chosen the path with the justest decision. The laws of the time had convicted Socrates of impiety, therefore inherently the law did not agree with him. Although there is great respect between the two entities of citizen and law, they do not automatically agree with each other, rather both are constantly in a pursuit to promote justice. What the citizen's version of justice might be may differ entirely than the law, showing Socrates independence and superiority to the law but respect to the greater good of society and the

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.

Socrates motives for not escaping could also be understood by his principles. His principle says, “And a good life is equivalent to a just and honorable one.”(1). Socrates believes and lives by doing well to himself and other people. Even though staying in prison would cause him physical damage, he is willing to sacrifice his body in order to save his soul. Because of his belief in living an honorable life, Socrates reasons to stay in prison rather than escaping.

Socrates should not escape from prison to avoid his death sentence because he would be breaking the law which ultimately led to him straying away from his own principles. He was a person who believed in what was just and doing what was morally correct. If he were to escape from prison, he would essentially be harming others and the State. He thought through harming others, he would be harming himself and his soul, so Socrates did not believe in harming others and thought it was unjust and morally wrong. Even though Socrates had the opportunity to escape and he was given plenty of reasons from his friends to do so, he did not want to go against what he believes in and his philosophy. He could not live a life where he would have to stop

More importantly, Socrates’s relationship to the state is made clear during the dialogue with his friend Crito, when speaking as if Socrates is the state himself. When asking how important the state is, the law asks; “Is your…country to be honored more than…all your ancestors…that it counts for more among the gods and sensible men, that you must worship it…?” Rather than a statement, Socrates makes his point that the law must be upheld, even in his case of a death sentence. It is important to note that Socrates accepted his fate, even though he felt the accusations against him were false. Yet, as if speaking on behalf of the law, recognized that escaping would only turn those untruthful indictments into the truth, and as a destroyer of laws; “You will strengthen the conviction of the jury that they passed the right sentence on you.” By the definition of the word martyr, as one who dies for a cause, in this instance the laws of the state,

Similarly, Socrates does not follow this definition of civil disobedience because he challenges the ‘morals’ of certain laws rather than ‘break the law’. When faced with the charges of impiety (not believing in God) and corrupting the youth, Socrates challenges these claims in court by reasoning with his own moral truths. For example, Socrates questions “Can a man believe in spiritual and divine agencies, and not in spirits or demigods?” (Apology 10) in response to his impiety charge. In other words, Socrates believes in divine things, thus he believes in divinities. The city of Athens convicts Socrates of atheism based on his premise, even though his argument for being impious does not articulate with his definition of ‘being impious’. It may seem as if Socrates questions whether these laws are just or unjust, however, Socrates does not intentionally break the law because his belief and understanding of God are different from the rest of society. Socrates does not say he disbelieves in God, rather he interprets it differently. Definitively, Socrates is not civilly disobedience because he does not intentionally break the law, rather he

"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.

King then differentiates between just laws and unjust laws. By quoting St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, he states that unjust laws are not considered laws.

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.

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.

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

He also explains to Crito that the citizen is bound to the laws like a child is bound to a parent, and so to go against the laws would be like striking a parent. Rather than simply break the laws and escape, Socrates should try to persuade the laws to let him go. These laws present the citizen's duty to them in the form of a kind of social contract. By choosing to live in Athens, a citizen is endorsing the laws, and is willing to follower by them. Therefore, if he was to break from prison now, having so consistently validated the social contract, he would be making himself an outlaw who would not be welcome in any other civilized state for the rest of his life. Furthermore when he dies, he will be harshly judged in the underworld for behaving unjustly toward his city's laws. In this way, Socrates chooses not to attempt escape but he dies as a martyr, not for himself, but for his city and its system of justice.

Socrates would rather be punished or die before he breaks the laws that were set forth by his state, and this he says later in the same passage, “I should run any risk on the side of law and justice rather than join you. (Cahn pg. 38 Apology b10-c2).”

‘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?'