Civil Disobedience

Name
Professor
Course
Date
Philosophy of Law the Views of King and Socrates
Martin Luther King was well known for his strong conviction that unfair laws should handled through civil disobedience. According to King, it was morally correct to disobey laws that he considered unjust. In his letter, from the Birmingham jail he quotes, "an individual has a moral duty to disregard unfair laws; an unjust law is no law at all." In his letter King referred to Socrates' quote however as much as there are similarities between the two individuals there are differences as well. In the Apology, Socrates strongly believed in obeying the laws to the latter regardless of hoe unjust they seem. Although there are similarities between King and Socrates and the way, they view civil obedience/disobedience.
Socrates and King are very alike when it concerns to believing that there are clearly outlined situation when individuals can go against the laws of the state. One can refuse to comply with unfair laws or those, which they feel, do not promote the good of the whole. For this reason, the good of society cannot be regarded when great contributors to society such as King and Socrates are sentenced due to unfair judgment. Both individuals chose to disregard the laws they thought to be unfair and they were both were prepared to lose their lives for their beliefs. This is because both individuals had moral certainty and audacity to think that their actions were more just and better for the whole of humanity than the laws they chose to disobey. According to Socrates when the leaders of society formulate laws that are unreasonable then it is impractical to sway members of society to adhere.
On the other hand, there are differences in the way both individuals behave in response to unjust verdicts. Socrates complied with what he considered as an undue sentence despite the efforts of his best friend to aid him in escaping. King disregarded what he felt was an unwarranted application of the law since he planned a protest without legal permission. However, by doing so reforms were made to an unfair system of legalized racial segregation. Socrates assertion that breaking the rules would damage the laws is baseless. The fact that a verdict came from the authority is in itself a reason for recognizing that judgment. Thus if an individual was informed that a person A was found guilty of a crime they would accept the deicision before the evidence or the reason for sentencing was informed to them. Nevertheless, after careful consideration of the evidence and reviewing the reason for the sentence one can resort to conflicting with the verdict made by the authority. In other words, the rules only function if people only consider the views from the legal authority but change if they consider their own beliefs and values of the decision. Thus not giving total consideration to the authority alone.
King believed that disobedience was necessary in certain instances in order to bring about radical change to certain laws rather harming them. King's civil disobedience was aimed at revolutionizing society and is not the kind of disobedience involved in carrying out malicious activities. King did not want a complete overhaul or the installation of a new government instead; he wanted to persuade the existing one to acknowledge the grievances that the civil movement was concerned. He was very obvious on the significance of recognizing legal punishment and committing to the legal system holistically. His argument was that he only disobeyed laws that he felt were unconstitutional and he felt were opposite to essential law of the nation. However, his remarks on natural law lack the recognition of legal authority. People who want to draw a distinction between law and morality leave no room for decision on what to do. Except if one assumes Socrates' point of view then an individual will still have to determine whether certain rules are immoral and can be disobeyed.
In conclusion, I think it is important to contrast authority based on understanding with legal authority. An authority is a person who has special knowledge. People believe what the authority tells them about the area of specialization regardless of the merits of the case. However, a legal authority is different in the sense that they have authority over people's actions not their beliefs. I believe it is simpler to control an individual's behavior in retort to a command but difficult to do so in regulating beliefs on command. This is difficult because a legal authority may require one to act in a manner that collides with deeply held beliefs. People cannot believe something because someone orders them to do so. There are good reasons for rejecting an obligation to adhere to the law because some laws are morally questionable. King referred to Socrates as practicing civil disobedience they both agreed to their sentences for breaking the law despite differing with the legal verdict. Therefore, I think civil disobedience is not failing to comply with the verdict but failing to agree on the verdict in it itself.




Surname 3