More handpicked essays just for you.
Martin luther king junior in achieving racial equality essay
The idea of equality martin lutter king
The idea of equality martin lutter king
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In this quote King explains that a law must not be followed unless it is morally sound. If people blindly follow immoral laws then it can lead to inequality. This quote is powerful in that King compares this understanding of law, to that of Nazi Germany. He is saying that Hitler abided by laws that did not account for moral responsibility, and therefore rationalized his actions. This compares to the laws in the United States, where individuals of color are treated unfair because the law allows it. Additionally, King is influential in the sense that he creates a call to action. He admits that if this was the case, he would not obey the law, and urges others to do the same. His goal is to persuade individuals to take responsibility.
In response to the clergyman's claim that his use of direct action was "untimely," King states, "We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God-given rights." As you can see, this statement is in direct relation to the clergyman's "untimely" notion, but one would do good to realize his underlying audience. The "we" in this statement refers to his "black brothers and sisters" taking an active role in the civil rights movement. So what this statement does in terms of pathos is to light the fire of inspiration under his black brothers and sisters and have them realize that 340 yea...
King insist that all of the laws ought to reflect the societal moral concerns. In this particular letter, he is making that point in the most explicit manner. He touches on sameness and equivocally states that the law is a form that expression of morality. For instance, he says that separation is a sin yet the law encourages it, and that laws itself is not only unjust, but also sinful. Dr. King also makes a number of dissections which bring out the good quality any legal mind must possess.
King gets his point across, that segregation is unfair and morally not right, and that man has a responsibility to act against unjust laws, by using many different strategies throughout the letter. He uses logos, pathos, and ethos to do so. While using these devices he shows emotion, gives logic to his reasoning’s and gives credibility as well. First and foremost, King calmly responded to the statement from the clergymen that his non-violent direct action was “unwise and untimely”. King logically does so by describing the situation where the negro leaders tried many times to negotiate with the city fathers to remove racial barriers, but the promises never held true.
Martin Luther King Junior's letter from a Birmingham Jail was an expression of his encouragement for protest against tradition and established laws and a justification for his actions. King, a leader of a civil-rights group that supported protest against traditional views, encouraged protesting against tradition and established laws that are unjust. In his letter from Birmingham Jail King states: "It was illegal to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at that time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's anti-religious laws." This excerpt shows that King encourages protest because in some situations he deems it necessary, be it in Hitler's Germany, a Communist country, or any situation in which injustices are occurring. In the last sentence of the excerpt King openly admits that he would protest against established laws or traditions. King was against the traditional views and unjust laws, which discriminated against him and his fellow people.
King clears up any idea that he’s just someone who has broken the law for no reason. He does this by saying; “I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” (Para 15) This statement tells us that Dr. King is simply adhering to his moral responsibility by doing as he’s supposed to. He knows that following a one-sided makes no sense, and it would be submitting to evil. He even goes on to quote St. Augustine, declaring that, “an unjust law is no law at all.” (Para 15) Therefore, the segregation laws that were implemented in Birmingham at the time were by St. Augustine’s logic, no law at
Dr. King notices that the clergymen are anxious over the black man’s “willingness to break laws” (King pg.218). He understands their anxiety over that issue. King then refers to the “Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools," praising it for its civil rights initiative (King pg.218). By mentioning the Supreme Court decision, he is reminding the reader that even a credible source such as the Supreme Court supports racial equality. Since most citizens are law abiding, the addition of the Supreme Court decision might convince the reader adopt the belief of racial equality. King then streamlines into a rhetorical question and answers the question. King writes, “One may well ask: ‘How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying other laws” (King 218). This question is King admitting that his intention seems paradoxical since he urges people to follow “the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation," while he is apparently willing to break laws (King pg.218). He insists that it is not a paradox, but rather an acknowledgement of the distinction between “just and unjust” laws (King pg.218). He insists that everyone has a “legal” and “moral responsibility” to follow just laws, but one equally “has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws” (King pg.218). In order to further provide evidence for his claims, King alludes to St.
King went on in his letter to say that it would be against man. made law to help Jews in Nazi Germany. What King said in his letter has to make a person think that not all laws are good for the group in society and morality is a justifiable excuse for breaking the law. Those who oppose my view on this question may be quick to ask me how. come we go by law and not morality in society.
King’s letter was influenced by “Apology”, The Bible, and The Tanakh, some of the most important pieces of philosophical literature in history. Socrates in “Apology” is known to be one of the founders of Western philosophy because he was successful in challenging and persuading his audience. And it is because of Socrates, the art of philosophy is so successful today. King used this source to justify disobedience and defend his reason for his actions as an advocate of desegregation. The Bible and The Tanakh were used as Christian references to justify the moral justification of his actions.
Dr. King’s reply to concerns of his willingness to selectively obey and disobey laws can be summed up in his words, “there are just laws, and there are unjust laws” (3). Expounding upon this, King explains that for a law to be inherently just, it must be inherently moral, and conversely, an unjust law is not in accord with the laws of morality. He elaborates by emphatically regarding segregation laws as immoral, and therefore unjust, because, in its allowance of exalting one ‘race,’...
...y, and also fidelity to the law. Acts of civil disobediences are aimed to defend principles of justice. In King’s case he aims to persuade the local government and the businesses to comply with desegregation laws. It was important for him to communicate fidelity to the law. You should lovingly break a law, because your reason behind protesting to to achieve what you see as a higher good. You are not directly hurting the people. King’s argument ultimately is you can break the law to make the law more just. You are attempting to break the law to show that the law is unjust, and it is an act of saying that the law can be made better than it is now. He’s gathered his facts and understanding of the law, it is 100% clear there’s a problem. For civil disobedience to be justified a real injustice must exist, or else it wouldn’t addresses a sense of justice of the majority.
King urged people to obey laws, but the exception is unjust laws. "...there are two types of laws: just and unjust...One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws," (King). He quotes St. Augustine in saying "an unjust law is no law at all." He goes on to describe a just law as a law that follows moral law and the law of God. He describes an unjust law as out of harmony with moral law, and a human law not rooted in eternal and natural
This essay is very influential from the start to the very end. He uses terms that make oppression seem to terrible, to make them feel bad about what they let happen. King seems very successful in capturing the audience that he intended to capture through stating scripture to draw in the Christians, words that are used to describe things that would be so much worse; like using evil to describe oppression or unjust, to writing it down in an obvious form that everyone could understand. He left them with very powerful messages that will linger in their minds until they cannot take it anymore, until they see that it is actually wrong and do something to fix the justice system to which they are governed under. By leaving with that thought of mind, he was very successful in getting his point through to all he intended it for.
Introduction Individuals often yield to conformity when they are forced to discard their individual freedom in order to benefit the larger group. Despite the fact that it is important to obey the authority, obeying the authority can sometimes be hazardous, especially when morals and autonomous thought are suppressed to an extent that the other person is harmed. Obedience usually involves doing what a rule or a person tells you to, but negative consequences can result from displaying obedience to authority; for example, the people who obeyed the orders of Adolph Hitler ended up killing innocent people during the Holocaust. In the same way, Stanley Milgram noted in his article ‘Perils of Obedience’ of how individuals obeyed authority and neglected their conscience, reflecting how this can be destructive in real life experiences. On the contrary, Diana Baumrind pointed out in her article ‘Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience’ that the experiments were not valid, hence useless.
The first example of the morality issue Dr. King raises is a just law, verses an unjust law. In his essay Dr King describes to his readers the difference between the two. “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law." Here Doctor King is defending his belief that there is a moral issue in some laws. He defends his statement by giving an example of Germany during the Nazi rule. King discusses what Hit...
James Rachels' article, "Morality is Not Relative," is incorrect, he provides arguments that cannot logically be applied or have no bearing on the statement of contention. His argument, seems to favor some of the ideas set forth in cultural relativism, but he has issues with other parts that make cultural relativism what it is.