King's Distinction Between Just and Unjust Laws

King now in paragraph 20 belief states where he stands in his argument toward the clergymen about his distinctions of the just and unjust laws. He calmly says that in no reason does he want to make people avoid or go against the law, unlike the extreme segregationist that want an anarchy. He knows that if people begin to avoid or go against these laws then it will create an anarchy. He goes into depth so people can really understand that to break unjust laws they must do it “openly,” “lovingly,” and with “willingness” to accept any penalties (par.20). He states that anyone who does this for the law has the highest respect for the law because they don't fight back they let themselves be penalized. King makes it clear to the clergymen that people

According to Millers terms of argumentation, king argues using ethos and we notice his different characteristics. King shows that he is intelligent by expressing to the clergymen that its not his intention to turn people against the whites because he knows that if he does that it will result in an anarchy. MLK also shows that he respects. He makes this obvious when he talks about accepting the penalties when disobeying the unjust laws. A Good example is him going to jail and his demonstrations by not fighting the law. Finally he shows his daringness and respect to go to the moon and back for his people. He show this ethos when he speaks of showing steps to being people with the highest respect for the law but not by creating an anarchy. His daringness comes out and says unlike the “rabid segregationist” who want nothing but an

He mentions in paragraphs 21 and 22 different examples of civil disobedience in which happened before his time. He goes as far as 630-562 B.C.E when Jerusalem was attacked and Shadrach, Meshack, and Abednego refused to obey and accepted any punishment given for civil disobedience. He mentions the early christian that were willing to face lions and chopping block just to disobey the some unjust laws of the Roman Empire. He says that academic freedom is a reality because Socrates practiced civil disobedience and that it is even used till this day as it did during the Boston Tea Party (par. 21). King mentions more world wide uses of civil disobedience to show the clergymen that he is not the only one who is trying to get there way by disobeying the law. An example king states is the example of Germany and Hungary when Hitler wanted to terminate Jewish people. He says that since Hitler did it legally this didn't mean it was just because it was wrong of him, and what the Hungarian freedom fighters did was break an “illegal law” which was wrong but it was the just thing to do (par. 22). The illegal law was not to aid jewish people but the Hungarian did it anyways because it was the just thing to do. A law that is made legal does not guarantee that it is the right thing to do. Now just because a law is made illegal does not guarantee it is the wrong thing to do, as MLK is