Martin Luther King's A Letter From Birmingham Jail

The Global, Moral Dilemma

Morality derives from the Latin moralitas meaning, “manner, character, or proper behavior.” In light of this translation, the definition invites the question of what composes “proper behavior” and who defines morality through these behaviors, whether that be God, humanity, or Martin Luther King in “A Letter from Birmingham Jail.” Socrates confronted the moral dilemma in his discourses millennia ago, Plato refined his concepts in his Republic, and leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi would commit their life work to defining and applying the term to political reform. Finally, after so many years, King reaches a consensus on the definition of morality, one that weighs the concepts of justice and injustice to describe morality

Throughout his letter, King appeals to logos, ethos, and pathos to define the term, whereas appealing to logos when he searches for the root of moral injustice in Birmingham, explaining, “In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action” (King 427). Likewise, King exposed injustice in Birmingham; his appeal to logos helps define morality through its applications. Equally, his definition conceives itself through the activist’s appeals to pathos and ethos as he explains the abusive relationship between the oppressed and the oppressor—the effect oppression has on the minority—and when deriving his authority from the principles that Socrates established long before him. Accordingly, a comprehensive definition arises in his quote that defines morality in terms of justice and injustice. He explains morality as having a divine character, “the law of God,” (King 431) and in terms of what morality is not, King defines morality through the unjust law, one that is “out of harmony” (430) with the divine origin of

This “proper behavior” as originating in morality’s Latin etymology, King describes as the decree of a just society and the law of God. Based on his quote, “But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends,” (King 439) the activist suggests that the human facet of morality is most vulnerable. The creation of law derives from what man interprets through God as proper or improper. These interpretations, King alludes, are subject to fallacy and the reason for the unjust law’s existence. Likewise, King finds the opportune moment in his unjust confinement and in the Civil Rights movement to define morality. Moreover, King’s explanation of the unjust law and its relation to morality augments his definition of the word. Constructing a counterargument, King considers the stance of skeptics as they express “a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws” (430). Yet, King describes this anxiety as unnecessary since a government’s creation of unjust laws allows them to be broken as a test of humankind’s moral alignment. Likewise, the vulnerability of morality manifests as the unjust law, the result of fallible interpretation of morality and when the law “is just on its face and unjust in its application” (King 431). Men and women—bystanders of the world—must challenge these laws to purge morality as the