Martin Luther King's Representation of Law - Essay Example

 Title Martin Luther King quotes St. Augustine in his letter from Birmingham jail, saying that “an unjust law is no law at all” (3). Thus, he claims his right to protest against an unjust law and even to break it. However, it is important to make it clear what an unjust law is and in what way it is different from a just law. Dr. Martin Luther King adverts to St. Aquinas’ understanding of the nature of law (3). According to Thomas Aquinas, there are human, natural, divine, and eternal laws (“Legal positivism vs. natural law theory” 2). When human laws are in conflict with natural laws, it means that these laws are not just and have not to be followed. For Martin Luther King the law is unjust if it “degrades human personality” (3). Segregation ordinances obliged some people to follow the rules based only on their skin color, giving the others an undeserved feeling of superiority. These ordinances were issued by people, who were not willing to follow such rules themselves. The lawmakers in this case did not aspire to common good for the community. They were trying to pursue their own interests, as a separate social group. Reverend King states that segregation is morally wrong. It is a sinful separation of some people from the others based on the characteristics that cannot be changed (3). Natural law for Dr. Martin Luther King, as well as for St. Thomas Aquinas, is the part of God’s eternal plan for everything that He has created (“Legal positivism vs. natural law theory” 2). An important statement in Reverend King’s “Letter” is that his protest against an unjust law of Birmingham was nonviolent (4). He did not break a moral law by appealing to violence against another human being. Dr. King emphasizes that he has always followed the rules of the Christian morality, which is, according to him, a code of natural and just laws (4). Martin Luther King does not follow the Machiavellian doctrine of permissiveness. His viewpoint is based on the Christian morality, faith in equality of all people, and respect to every person regardless of his or her skin color, race or ethnicity. Positive law is always legal, as it is issued by some authority that has the right to decide how to regulate human interactions in a society (“Legal positivism vs. natural law theory” 2). However, the morality of the law, even if it was made by a powerful and respectful person or institution, can always remain questionable. As Dr. Martin Luther King observes, Hitler’s laws in Germany were certainly legal, but they were appallingly immoral, unnatural and unjust (3). “Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever”, says Martin Luther King, and it means that an unjust law cannot last forever (4). Hitler’s laws in Germany, Saddam Hussein’s laws in Iraq or Gaddafi’s laws in Libya were legal in those countries for a certain period of time. They are not legal now, because some people thought that those laws were immoral, and that by those laws one social group could oppress the other. The morality of many laws, functioning in different counties all over the world, can be questionable in one way or another. For example, in some Asian countries, like Iran or Saudi Arabia homosexual marriages are considered to be immoral, that is why the law that allows them cannot be adopted there. Dr. Martin Luther King was fighting for what he believed was important and right. If a person who aspires to justice and equal rights for everyone is put in jail for nonviolent protest it means that some laws may need a thorough examination. A person can be punished for breaking an unjust law, but the act of punishment itself would not be moral or just. A judge, especially a good one, is obligated to obey the letter of law. Thus, even if the law is unjust, the court has to hold trial. It seems to me that an unjust law was upheld by the John Marshall Court in the case of Antelope. The judge states that “the sacred rights of liberty and of property come in conflict” in this case (“The Antelope” 3). Admitting that the slave traffic is abhorrent, he nevertheless claims that it has been sanctioned by law (“The Antelope” 3). The judge draws attention to the fact that although some countries “asserted the illegality” of slavery, its abolition was not been admitted by all. Spanish Consul claims “his portion of slaves” and as according to the laws of Spain slavery is legal, John Marshall Court resolved to restitute to the claimant a certain number of slaves, which is to be calculated according “to the ratio which ninety-three bears to the whole number” (“The Antelope 10”). In this case human beings are indicated as “property” and calculated like inanimate objects. Therefore, an unjust law is upheld by the judge on the pretext of protection of property. The law, as a form of regulation of human relations in a society, is always expected to be just. However, as Martin Luther King states in the “Letter from Birmingham” there are laws that “degrade human personality” (3). This kind of law is considered as unjust and unnatural. When the law is just, it can make those who follow it better, while an unjust law corrupts the personality of the citizen. That is why every law should be the subject of a thorough examination. This concerns not only the new laws, but also the existing ones. The world never stops changing, and the laws, that regulate human relations in a society, cannot remain inalterable. Works cited King, Martin Luther, Jr. ”Letter from Birmingham jail.” African studies center – University of Pennsylvania n.p n.d. Web “The Antelope – 23 U.S. 66 (1825).” Justia. Volume 23 n.p. n.d. Web “Natural law vs. legal positivism.” Philosophy2.org. New Mexico State University n.p. n.d. Web Read More