Arguments of Martin Luther King - Essay Example

Crito-King Proverbs 17:17 says, "A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity" (Prov 17.17). The scripture says that a friend decides to love at all times, and regardless of the situation ad without regard to other people. This covers the both the victorious and the trying times. In the case of Socrates' imprisonment, Plato's loyalty and love were put on trial as he felt the pressure of being ridiculed by others as to what kind of friend he is to Socrates. It is just appropriate to give credit to the concern that Plato has shown over the life of Socrates. The conversation reveals that he fears for Socrates' life, his family especially the education of Socrates' children and most especially he feared losing a good friend (Plato). This revelation as to what Plato really feels about Socrates' is a normal and valid show of love for a friend. On the other hand, Plato revealed that he feared another evil, and that is to be commented as having loved the money more than his friend (Plato). If he would not pay so that Socrates would escape, there will certainly be murmurs as to what he has done or what he has failed to do and for Plato this is another evil that haunts him, perhaps even more compelling than the pure reason of concern (Plato). In the time of adversity, when Plato's loyalty was on a test, he somewhat faltered. Another scripture says, "Faithful are the wounds of a friend" (Prov 27.6a). These words can be examined to mean that true friend can withstand seeing his friend suffer a pain if that would be for his good. In this test, Plato did not pass the test because he was not willing to allow Socrates to suffer for what is righteous. By and large, Plato failed to stand the test of a true friendship. I believe King would not try to convince Socrates to escape because the act of escaping is also in contrast to King's conviction. Before we finally seal the argument of King's possible advice to Socrates, it would worthwhile to clear the nature of and the virtue behind the act of escaping. Escaping is an act of turning around from the real issue, something like withdrawal from what one confronts. Escape is different from non-violent resistance as the latter implies direct confrontation of the matter while the former signifies breaking out of what one faces. Certainly, this is not what Martin Luther King personifies. In the "Letter from Birmingham Jail", Martin Luther King clarified that the demonstration that they were doing aimed to solicit attention in the achievement of proper negotiations with the merchants and other concerned parties (King). The demonstration is a courageous clamor for the concerned violators to face their victims, in a peaceful and diplomatic way. But in all these, he maintained his conviction that the real issue should be dealt by confronting it peacefully. Therefore, escaping will be in contrast to King's principles. This is also what Socrates has obvious believed as he finds it unrighteous to escape and settle in a safe but far place from Athens. For him, this is not virtuous (Plato). The second argument is that King does not in any way imply that he would resort to a way which is violent and in direct contrast to the law. Unlike demonstration, escaping is a clear violation to the law of the state. And this is not what King stands for. Martin Luther King Jr. saw the need to create tension so as to be liberated from the darkness of prejudice and racism and reach brotherhood and understanding, for the very reason of establishing the state and not to ruin it (King). Socrates has the same attitude, as evidenced by his desire for what is just as he believes that violation of the law will be injustice and doing so will mean a ruin to the very state that they wish to build (Plato). With the two points that I have argued, I will now lay the strong evidence for such points. On the aspect of escaping as a break out or flee rather than a confrontation of the real issue, it is clearer in the letter of Martin Luther King Jr. that one of dams the progress of Blacks civil right is the silence of the "good Whites" (King). The "good Whites" are those who say that they support the goal of the Black but they have not in any way showed such in action (King). This act is for him more painful than those who vehemently push for racial segregation. For him, this is a greater evil and thus he condemned them in his letter (King). What makes this type similar to the notion of escape is the inability to change the status quo as those who have the right to change do not in any way act. Socrates was advised by Plato in "Crito" to leave and to settle in Thessaly together with his family where they can be protected and valued (Plato). In short, they can escape to a place where they can continue living without the perils of the Athenian government. This act is not what Martin Luther King Jr. has meant by his non-violent civil disobedience as this would be a clear conformist attitude and will in no way change the present rule of evil in the society. To elucidate on the point of escaping as a direct violation of the law, I would highlight that after all the civil disobedience, Martin Luther did not in any way intend to personally escape from the prison, but he was prepared to accept the consequences of acting upon his convictions (King). It was never mentioned in his letter that he desires to even escape the prison although he was not seemingly detained on legal and moral grounds. Instead, he enjoined others to do non-violent civil disobedience. This is a similar scenario to that of Socrates who was jailed because of his inability to hold his tongue and be passive. Socrates will not in any way violate the law which is compared to parents who have nurtured him and provided for all things necessary (Plato). I take the negative side that King will not convince Socrates to escape as this will even be in contrast to his own convictions. He will find it difficult to go the extreme act of escaping as he defended in his paper that he did not intend to be an extremist as that would either mean being completely silent or being radically violent (King). He maintains being in the middle as either side will be unnecessary. However, we consider the case that Martin Luther King Jr. indeed attempts to convince Socrates to come out and escape in prison in an illegal way. The thing that we have to answer is that will he be successful in doing so Will Martin Luther King Jr.'s points of argument as known from his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" be enough to convince Socrates Luther will not be able to convince Socrates to escape. An argument that Luther can possibly use against the current state that Socrates is in is the question of how valid that law is. It is indicated in Luther's speech that he considered the laws regarding segregation as invalid as these violate the higher laws of equality and freedom (King). For Luther King, the law of the state is valid or legal if it is in congruent to the higher law particularly the Divine Law or the Law of God. Luther King identified two types of law as the just and the unjust law, so that the one should be obeyed and the one should be disobeyed (King). Luther King could use the same argument as to what law has brought Socrates to the prison, is it the just or the unjust law However, I maintain that Socrates will not be moved by this argument to plan escape as this was already pointed out by Plato in "Crito". Socrates maintained that people ought not to retaliate so as to return evil for evil whatever evil one may have suffered (Plato). Thus, he resolved to suffer even though the grounds of his suffering were evil, on the basis that an individual cannot overthrow the law (Plato). I believe Socrates would not accept King's argument no matter how heartfelt and humane Martin Luther King's purposes are. Luther King can use myriad of ways to solidify his stand such as the use of factual evidences on the state's discrimination and injustice, but this will not suffice as base for Socrates' escape. None of the points raised by Martin Luther King Jr. will move the heart of Socrates towards his way of maintaining justice in Athens. In response to King's argument on the law being unjust, Socrates might actually adhere to his point. Luther King would posit that a man-made law squares with the moral law of God so as to be just (King). For King, the imprisonment of Socrates will be found unfair and unjust. Socrates will in no way contradict this as he has also implied in his responses to Plato that he sees so (Plato). Socrates believed that it is never right to ward off evil by evil (Plato). By this, he implied that if the state has in fact done such a thing to him, another form of evil such as escaping which is an injury to the men of Athens will not heal nor correct the injustice (Plato). This form of violation is an injury to the state and the law that once took care of him and for Socrates this is another evil that can be prevented by willingly submitting to its verdict. King has used the injustices that are caused to our loved ones such as children, spouse and parents as enough to make the move immediate (King). For Martin Luther King Jr. the disrespect to the Blacks, the tears of the children and the pain of those who are maltreated are necessary reasons to make spark the civil disobedience (King). But this argument would not appeal to Socrates as he argued that country is to be viewed as higher and holier and should be more valued than even the father, mother and even the ancestors (Plato). Socrates will answer King with a stand on the big respect and submission to the state thus leading to the decision of staying in prison and even facing death as the state has willed. Works Cited King, Martin Luther. "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." 16 April 1963. http://www.africa.upenn.ed. 18 May 2009 . Plato. Crito. Trans. Benjamin Jowett. 360 B.C.E . The Family Devotional Study Bible, New International Version. Japan: The Zondervan Corporation, 1987 Read More