Socrates and Martin Luther King - Essay Example

Socrates and Martin Luther King I support Martin Luther King’s view that civil disobedience is just in the face of unjust laws. If a law is unjust, then civil disobedience becomes a must. One’s conscience must dictate common sense. Laws need to be questioned, not blindly be obeyed. Although Socrates felt that serving an unjust sentence was just, King’s answer is better. King actually wanted to change the injustices of the world. By going along with a law one feels is unjust, allows injustice prevail.

It is dangerous to follow Socrate’s ideals about his sentence. However, many people feel that way. An example would be Abu Graib. Americans know torture is wrong, but because of ‘orders’ and outrage due to 9/11, average Americans committed heinous acts. Despite the injustice of torture, these soldiers obeyed laws and order without question. It is easy to point fingers at the Nazis for the Holocaust, but they also cried ‘we obeyed orders.” Laws that are unjust should not be obeyed, like Socrates argued.

Of course, King never wanted vigilantes. He did not suggest that civilians hunt down KKK members and kill them. King wanted civil disobedience to laws such as segregation, riding in the back of the bus, and other unjust laws. He wanted to respond with marches and voting registration drives. King never proposed to act unjustly, but to act in a manner that promoted justice. King did go to jail in Birmingham. He did not try to escape. King followed the laws of the states he visited. King’s actions were more of a protest than actual lawbreaking.

If arrested, or detained by the police, King was respectful and dignified. The whole civil disobedience was a fight for equal rights. King felt that civil disobedience was a duty in the face of racial inequality. The alternative to King’s thoughts is Socrate’s idea of obeying all laws. This is wrong. Each individual is responsible for their actions. Governments are not responsible for the individual’s conscious. Nazi Germany had laws that paved way for extermination of Jews. If enough people would have stood up when the Nuremburg laws were passed, Hitler would not have been able to go through with the Holocaust.

When enough people stood up and said slaver was wrong, a war was fought to end it in this country. Critics might say that laws are good and anarchy bad. Anarchy is bad, laws must be made to protect individuals. However, lawmakers are human. They do not always s make good laws. This is the good part about democracy. Laws can change and be altered. Democracy allows for individuals to obey their conscious and the law, or change what is wrong. Independent thoughts help create better laws.

The whole Civil Rights Movement came about due to democracy. In a totalitarian or communist government, citizens do not have that privilege. Finally, Martin Luther King was younger than Socrates. King thought he could change the law, whereas Socrates was older. Socrates felt that he was too old to make a difference. The age difference made a big impact on both man’s view. King’s view that civil disobedience was a duty in the face of injustice helped form a better way of life for generations of American.

Because of his beliefs, white and black children can play, go to school, drink out of the same fountain, and even grow up and marry. If King had held Socrate’s view, segregation might still be law. Instead progress was made to create one country for all References Bass, S. Jonathan. Blessed Are the Peacemakers: Martin Luther King, Jr., Eight White Religious Leaders, and the ""Letter from Birmingham Jail. USA: Louisiana University Press, 2002. King, M. L. "Letter from a Birmingham Jail [King, Jr.

" African Study Center: University of Pennsylvania. Accessed 23 Oct. 2008 from http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html West, Thomas and Grace Starry West. Four Texts on Socrates: Platos Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito and Aristophanes Clouds. USA: Cornell University Press, 1998.