In this paper, I will argue that Plato is mistaken and MLK is correct, since civil disobedience is sometimes required. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is recognized as one of the most important figures in the civil rights movement. During this time in the United States, discrimination against colored individuals persisted despite the pressure civil rights activists placed on the government. In April 1963, MLK and several other individuals were arrested in Birmingham, Alabama during a campaign against the racist mistreatment of black people. Birmingham at the time was recognized as the “most thoroughly segregated city in the United States” (MLK Page). In this letter, he responds to his fellow clergymen who have called his decisions to be “unwise …show more content…
MLK bases this letter on the impact injustice has on the people and the necessity to exterminate any form of it. He emphasizes how “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice anywhere” and I seemingly compare this claim to injustice to cancerous cells in a way. This ideology of how one instance of injustice will spread if not taken care of is seen throughout this letter. Similar to cancer cells, injustice roams freely and persists until a change is sought out. In this case, MLK decides that injustice in Birmingham and throughout the entire country has reached an alarming state. To fight against this, MLK has found it necessary to take action instead of waiting for an empty response from the government. He argues that his people have been waiting for change for countless centuries, meaning action is necessary to remove injustice. The decision he comes up with is to practice nonviolent direct action, as it would “create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue.” Based on MLK’s argument throughout this letter, no matter how much a group of people are looking to create change, nonviolent pressure is necessary to truly influence the government. To support