Martin Luther King Jr. Vs Socrates Essay

The contrasting beliefs voiced by Martin Luther King Jr. and Socrates emphasize the logical flaws in following established principles and opposing unjust laws in the pursuit of justice. King believed that it is our responsibility as individuals to interpret the law in a manner that takes into account its moral justness (King 94). Conversely, Socrates thought that as members of society, the norms and regulations we had lived by our entire lives should not be disobeyed under any circumstances (Plato 49b). In this paper, I side with King's point of view and reinforce his reasoning by arguing that any law or principle can be broken provided the individual can morally justify their actions. Ultimately, rules provide stability in our society, however

was a courageous man who inspired people to fight the harsh injustices faced by people of colour. He committed to consciously battle these unfair rules in a way that recognized the fundamental principles of a legal system. According to King’s conditions, he outlined our moral obligation to oppose unjust laws and similarly the responsibility of upholding laws that are just and reasonable (King 93). However, if an individual did make the choice to break an unjust law, they are required to willfully accept the consequences of their actions (King 95). Socrates, on the other hand, believed that no law, whether right or unjust, should ever be broken. He believed that the principle of an effective legal system is closely tied to a properly functioning society. The act of breaking the law was equivalent to destroying it, and in so destroying the individual, since it was the very thing that gave them existence in the first place (Plato 50d). The crucial thing to remember in each of these cases is that every human has a different perspective on whether or not it is ethically acceptable to disobey a law. The fundamental concepts of law and justice are essential to the stability of our society; without them, there would undoubtedly be chaos and dysfunction. But I believe that there should be an exemption for certain

I agree with King that we have a moral obligation to resist unjust laws (King 93). However, I also believe that any law may be broken to the point that a person can justify their actions ethically. For example, in civilized nations, there are already laws in place acknowledging situations in which some illicit activity can be accepted. Both murder in self-defence and speeding in a car to bring a person with a life-threatening injury to a hospital are justified. But there are scenarios when the law is not so willing to accept them. For example, stealing for one's own gain. Every person follows a set of ethical standards that guide their behaviour, and although some find stealing reasonable, others find it unjustifiable. Laws in society are made to restrict the behaviour of those who are already committing crimes. These regulations, however, cannot prevent such people from committing crimes since they have already rationalized their behaviour as moral. As a result, any law, not just unjust ones, can be broken since individuals have different ideologies and it is impossible to establish laws that address