Morality and Civil Disobedience - Essay Example

Justin Bibby   Jurisprudence   Dr. Alvis   October 16, 2006     Justice, Morality and Civil Disobedience: St. Augustine and Martin Luther King, Jr.   St. Augustine utilized Christian tenets in order to illustrate his position on morality and the law and offered the notion that laws which were unjust, or those which were in direct conflict to Christian philosophy, were laws that could justifiably be opposed using Christian principles as a guideline. These principles are wholly biblical in nature, with Augustine believing that all men must measure their actions primarily for the receipt of Gods eternal salvation, through the establishment of laws (and behaviors) based on Christian precepts of societal morality and fairness. St. Augustine illustrated his interpretation of unjust laws with his argument that the motivations of man, that being lust for authority and self-determination, undermined Gods precepts of morality and social equality. Augustine relates Gods law as that of "supreme reason" to which all men should conform (Evodius and Augustine dialogue), even those leaders who Augustine deems unreasonable for implementing legal systems that defy Gods intentions. Having established St. Augustines comparisons of laws which he considers unjust, that is, those laws which defy Christian values, Augustine promotes the concept of "temporal law" under which civilians often turn over their rights as Gods citizens to corrupted leadership who act for private interests. Moreover, these temporal laws can be changed when they are unjustly established without securing the public good, thus Augustine suggests that Christian values can be considered the supreme reason by which society can justifiably refuse adherence to corrupt laws. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a renowned civil rights activist in the 20th century, further supported the idea of unjust or immoral laws by promoting the necessity for civil disobedience, or a somewhat passive approach to refusing immoral or un-Christian laws, through protest and refusal to comply with any law that destroys the civil liberties of society. Moreover, King was inspired by the Eastern philosophy of utilizing truth and love as an instrument to resist injustice, rather than promoting violence (Smith, 1970). In accordance to Christian beliefs, truth and love became the cornerstone for Kings support for civil disobedience. Dr. King also substantiates the viewpoint of St. Augustine in terms of relating moral law to that of corrupt law, thus both Christianity proponents support the premise that any law which destabilizes Christian morality is a law which cannot be supported by blind compliance. This project is designed to not only illustrate the arguments made by both men which support passive non-compliance to unjust laws, but to highlight the specific Christian precepts of justice and morality used to support the justification for civil disobedience. When society either knowingly or unwittingly allows corrupted leadership to work against the public interest, citizens must attempt to regain their civil liberties. This can be accomplished through violent action or utilizing passive protest and this work will serve to answer why civil disobedience is acceptable to Christianity and as a justifiable method to terminate unjust laws and subsequently reclaim civilian authority. It is important to link St. Augustines viewpoint on just versus unjust laws with Dr. Kings expression of civil disobedience as it lays a template for those who wish to reclaim their independence from corrupted leadership through passive resistance citing Christian tenets as the purpose for their disloyalty. St. Augustines keen insight into maintaining civil order in the midst of the clash between power ambitions and laws that sustain the good of the people (that being perceived good versus evil), indicate that injustice breeds civil contempt. Augustine indicates his distaste with laws that separate the good of faithful, devoted citizens and that of lustful ambitions of national leadership. In his conversations with Evodius, Augustine points out that when the public turns over their rights to shameful and villainous regimes, the laws protecting the people and the laws that protect private interests are in direct opposition to one another (Evodius Augustine dialogue). This is the basis for comparing unjust laws with that of justice for the people.             It is important to illustrate Augustines position on his firm belief in Christian morality and his stern comparisons which suggest, rather subtly, that unjust laws of the nation state can be attributed to contempt against God. Augustine argues that the divine reward in a righteous, heavenly city, composed of laws that benefit the good of every man, is a just law which should be supported through social adherence. In essence, Augustine teaches us that politics is always a compromise of interest and justice. St. Augustine promotes that over time, as people fall away from Christian beliefs and hand over control to corrupted regimes, the emergence of political systems is an inevitable outcome which acts as a replacement for Christian precepts, which both citizens and leadership regimes have adopted due to having fallen from Gods graces. Thus, political man is fallen man (Raeder, 2003). This concept of fallen man represents corrupted leadership which no longer establishes laws based on Christian beliefs that secure the good of society, rather leaders no longer engage in righteousness or morality in their political pursuits; so as to satisfy their private interests. Augustine was substantially aware that many evil acts have been performed in the name of politics, which laid the foundation for his explanations regarding political regimes during his era (Schall, 1996). Augustine makes the allusion that rulers who begin to utilize their authorities to coerce public citizens to follow create a public who are blind to the transcendence of political weight and do not realize they have lost control of their rights until it is too late. This, then, as a close comparison to Kings philosophy on protesting unjust laws, becomes the basis for recapturing control over civil liberties through civil disobedience. To further establish St. Augustines clear distinction between laws that support the good of the people and that of lustful or corrupt leadership, he establishes his perceptions of two cities, one which he denotes as the earthly city and the second being a heavenly city. Comparing these two cities, Augustine suggests that the earthly city is one formed by the love of self and promoting a lesser faith in the divine. The heavenly city, built on faith and the foundation of Christian principles, consists of godliness and is devoid of foolish human wisdom. Augustine further implies that the earthly city is composed of a desire to make peace for the sake of obtaining worldly goods and thus makes war on other societies in pursuit of amity (Evodius and Augustine dialogue). He subtly compares the earthly city, and the rule of corrupted leadership, to that of bordering on depravity and not established for the good of its citizens and is thus an invalid legal system. Martin Luther King, in support of Augustines position regarding unjust or anti-Christian legalities, retaliates against criticism for his position on civil disobedience and protest of segregation laws. King was exposed to harsh oppression during his lifetime amid the hostilities of a turbulent 20th Century, in terms of social law concerning blacks. It is relevant to discuss the historical situations behind Kings viewpoint on civil disobedience as it was his belief that it was the value system of corrupted leadership which bred laws that could not be obeyed using blind compliance, especially in the face of his peoples oppression from being granted Christian liberties. Because of his promotion of civil disobedience against segregation, King was incarcerated in a Birmingham prison where he composed a letter justifying his strongly Christian belief in protesting the unjust law of segregation. Amid this letter, King supports passive refusal with, "A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority….(who) had no part in enacting or devising the law…One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty" (MLK Letter). King further makes distinct references to Nazism and Old Testament civil disobedience in his attempts to justify the immoral ramifications of denying blacks civil liberties and black societys subsequent protests to nullify these laws. Dr. Martin Luther Kings reference to Nazism and Old Testament figures is designed to illustrate the numerous historical situations in which public citizens have unwittingly given over their rights to leadership who establishes laws based on personal agendas which eventually remove focus from the good of the people. History has been riddled with instances in which public citizens virtually hand over their God-given rights and allow corrupt leadership to establish laws that are invalid to sustaining the public interest. Kings justification of his viewpoint on civil disobedience is well-served by pointing out that it is a recurring trend throughout history where public citizens are denied Christian-based freedoms and they must make subsequent attempts to recapture these civil liberties through disloyalty to the legal system. King further argues that civil disobedience, in Christian terms, is a far more valuable and Godly act than having to resort to violence to reclaim the good of the public as represented by legal systems. King appears to be firm in his belief that corrupted laws (or unjust laws) require this passive disobedience as those in power cannot be fought using any other method without defying the Christian value system. King believed that without a sound justification for disobedience by comparing unjust laws to Christian doctrine, he would be merely a simple criminal who breaks laws (Members.aol.com). Because King held that Gods law is based on love and social equality, any law imposed which negated these precepts could be denied through civil resistance.             Dr. King clearly indicates within his letter which he composed during incarceration that any law used to deny citizens of their rights (Christian rights) is a law worthy of refute through peaceful assemblies and objection. St. Augustine compares a very similar scenario to that described by King by stating that a soldier who is commanded to destroy his enemy, by the soldiers leadership, and refuses to comply will most certainly be punished for this act. Augustine dictates such a situation as an unjust law as it is in objection to divine commandments and is therefore invalid.   Both men recognize that failure to comply with unjust laws will meet with punishment enacted by a spiritually-misguided leadership regime and argue that such steps are often necessary to change the nature of the law in favor of the good of the citizens. King defends his rationale behind civil disobedience by promoting that a citizen inspired to take non-violent action must also recognize the reality of punishment for open protest. In similar fashion, both Christian leaders recognize that the authority of the state is a powerful entity to contend with, however, for the sake of glorifying God in the pursuit of peace and social unity, civil disobedience is not only a valid option for refuting unjust laws, it is God’s favorable approach and is therefore a just action. The commonality between both men, as an interpretation of their mutual support to ending corrupted laws, is in their brute acknowledgement that political systems, if left to breed without peaceful defiance, will continue to erode the civil liberties of oppressed people. The main theme to both Augustinian beliefs regarding legal systems and that of Dr. King is in their firm devotion to the conviction that all laws should be compared to Christian doctrine in order to be affirmed as a just law. St. Augustine believes that laws which provide fairness and security for citizens are considered eternal laws, whereas temporal laws can be altered throughout the passage of time or through social resistance. Through St. Augustines argument that political systems are an inevitable consequence of establishing social order in lieu of laws based on Christianity he successfully argues that any law which conflicts with the harmonious precepts of Gods intention to bring unity through peace can be characterized as unjust. Dr. King suggests in his letter from Birmingham that tensions amongst the citizens of America and the regime that firmly holds segregation laws as valid are an example of the conflict between the laws of corrupted leadership (temporal law) and that of the public interest (eternal law). In an interesting correlation between Augustinian opinion and that of Dr. King, King adamantly attempts to persuade his critics that the protest of Civil Rights laws is not a lustful or vengeful decision based on self-serving motivation, only that civil disobedience is a tool to reclaim lost civil liberties taken by political authority. The similarities between philosophies for justifying unjust laws are quite substantial: Both men hold firm that God is to hold all men accountable for their actions and, thus, Gods moral guidelines affirm civil disobedience by nature of morality versus immorality and Christian reasoning justifies passive resistance to unjust laws. References Augustine, St. (1958). The City of God: Excerpts on the Two Cities. Chapter 4. Of the Conflict and Peace of the Earthly City. Evodius and Augustine Dialogue King, Martin Luther, Jr. Dr. (April 1963). "Letter from Birmingham Jail". Excerpt from Kings Why We Cant Wait. www.stanford.edu/group/king/frequentdocs/birmingham.html. Members.aol.com. Dr. Martin Luther Kings Views on Civil Disobedience. http://members.aol.com/oohalooo/doconcd.html. Raeder, Linda C. (2003). "Augustine and the Case for Limited Government. Humanitas. 16, 2: p.94. Schall, James V, S.J. (1996). The "Realism" of St. Augustines "Political Realism": Augustine and Machiavelli. Perspectives on Political Science: 25, 17-23.  Smith, Donald H. (1960). An Exegesis of Martin Luther King, Jr.s Social Philosophy. Phylon. Clark Atlanta University. 31 (1), p.93. Retrieved from Jstor website at www.jstor.org.     Read More