Similarities Between Martin Luther King Jr And Socrates

Socrates and Martin Luther King Jr. have shown and voiced their own and have their own definitions of civil disobedience. Socrates believed in the law as complete truth. He believed that all individuals are to follow the laws. Martin Luther King Jr. believed that the laws had flaws, and that it was our responsibility to get them to change. Would Socrates agree with Martin Luther King Jr. on his acts of civil disobedience? I believe Socrates would agree with Martin Luther King Jr. on everything that he did, except when he actually broke the law which led him to be jailed in Birmingham.

Socrates refuses to disobey the law. He believes in the correctness of the cities laws. He believes it is never right to act unjustly. He thinks that if you do not agree with the laws of the area that you are living at, then to leave and go somewhere else. He argues that the government could be seen as “his parents, also those who brought him up,” (Crito, 51e), since he has lived there his entire life and when you live somewhere for so long you should “persuade us or to do what we say,” (Crito, 52a) or leave. Socrates tells Crito that

if he escaped the government might say “You are breaking the commitments and agreements that you make with us without compulsion or deceit,” (Crito, 52e).
Martin Luther King Jr. believed drastically different. He thought that if you think a law is unjust that you are aloud to disobey it and if you in fact do nothing about it then you are committing an injustice to yourself. He said “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws,” and continued saying “I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all,”” (King, paragraph 12). Throughout King’s life, he challenged the laws. He began picketing and protesting for what he believed was for the greater good.
Just like Socrates, King was not as radical as others of their time. King was quoted saying, “I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear,” (Boone, quote 2). Socrates lived a more private life though. He didn’t picket and march with signs with his beliefs. He would target people and have conversations with them. Although, a lot of people strongly thought that he was annoying, since he poked at the beliefs of others.
Although, both men were imprisoned for standing up for their beliefs. Socrates was imprisoned for philosophizing. King was put in jail in Birmingham because he broke the law, but he also obeyed the law by staying in jail and accepting his punishment which is what Socrates did as well, even after being bribed by Crito saying that he could help him escape. Both men accepted their punishment by staying in jail.
I believe Socrates would approve of Martin Luther King Jr.

up until he got caught for marching without a permit because King was not doing anything wrong up until that point. King was trying to change the law, persuade the law for African Americans. King was trying to persuade the people, not because he wanted to ultimately overthrow the laws, but because he wanted to help change. He and his following got to the point where sitting down and talking and trying to propose their ideas simply did not work. So, they began to try and persuade in a different light. It was another take of persuasion that they took to try and spread. This is something Socrates consistently insisted on, “You must either persuade or obey it’s [the laws] orders,” (Crito 51b). By King trying to persuade they law, he is in fact following Socrates guidelines for living under the

law.
Even though in a way Martin Luther King Jr. broke the law, and was jailed, Socrates would’ve agreed with his insistence of trying to persuade the law. Not only did King try and persuade, but he also obeyed the law while he was in the wrong. For these reasons, I believes Socrates would stand beside sand agree with the actions of King, except for when he actually broke the law.