In fact, natural and eternal law being a 'higher law' is the basis of King's philosophy of 'non-violent civil disobedience.' King views the segregation laws, a human law, to be in disagreement with natural and eternal law; therefore, he believes that these laws should not be followed. King writes, "Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality" ("Letter"). The first sentence is an appeal to 'higher law'; King claims if a law devalues someone, it is contrary to natural and eternal law, so the law cannot be just.
124). His other point is that God having a sufficient reason for permitting evil is not the same as having a hallucination. He states that having good reason for the existence of God increases the possibility that He has a reason for permitting gratuitous suffering (p. 124). He also counters the claim that there is no evidence to suggest that God is all-good and all-powerful. He refers to his moral argument—wherein without the existence of God, objective moral values would also cease to exist, but objective moral values do exist and thus God also must exist—to make the claim that God is all-good (p. 125).
Actually, the society has gradually become cruel and indifferent. Certainly, follow the law, people have no choice to rebel the government. The only thing to do is to accept the reality and the heavy burden. And the society can have a slow progress in development because of it. So in this way, the excessive legislation indeed is obviously dangerous for people depended on the quality.
The branched cannot pass any law that is unconstitutional or against the people. Petition of Right is when they King become answerable to others and not just God. The King said they were only answerable to God. The divine right of the Kings was a very unpopular thing among the people because the King couldn't be wrong, but they didn't want to disobey the King or God. Article 1; Section 9 is an example of the many ways the Constitution limits our government.
According to him, the definition of a just law would be a man-made code. An un-just law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law or natural law. Dr. King considered any segregation statutes to be unjust since segregation destroys the soul and damages the personality. To simply put it, any law that degrades human personality is also unjust. He wanted the council to be able to realize that the laws they were creating weren’t laws that were protecting the human
King states that “an unjust law is no law at all” because he believed that laws were put in place in order to benefit and aid the citizens of the state. If a law was unjust, however, it then was contradictory and should not be considered a law” (MLK). Martin Luther King Jr. stated, in his letter, “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.” King also says an unjust law is one that is forced upon a minority by a
The author’s antithesis embedded in the anaphora, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” illustrates how crucial it is to battle injustice so that justice is not harmed (King). King does not want to threaten the justices in the nation through his protests, but rather the injustices in the nation. The general truth in the aphorism effects ethos by stating that the people’s justices will be endangered if injustices are not dealt with soon. The antithesis in the statement highlights that, while there are reasonable laws, there are also unreasonable laws that must be confronted in order to keep the nation in peace. Inequality is not felt by just those who are subjugated.
Our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution because The Articles of Confederation had too many weaknesses. Our Constitution now guards us from having any sorts of tyranny. The systems we use are Checks and Balances and Separation of powers. Checks and Balances is a system that allows other branches to check on each other to make sure anything they do does not go over their given power. The system of Separation of Powers ensures that our three branches are not being ruled by just one person.
Some may argue that the government should be strictly respected because they provide and protect our basic freedoms and needs. Others may disagree and state that it is appropriate to not only rebel, but overthrow the government no matter the condition due to a lack of trust and a sense of individuality that these defiant citizens feel they possess and must preserve. I feel that these two views are too extreme and that there is no sense in having too much or too little trust in the government. People should be cautious, and should not act unless there is a sense of intense corruption within the government which can be reversed through peaceful actions, brought on by voicing an opinion, even if it is not deemed valuable by the
Believing that to obey an unjust law was to condone unjust acts, and that right and wrong was more important than rules written by the government, both men chose to make their point through civil disobedience. By practicing civil disobedience they were able to take a stand, without carrying out violence, and, thus, causing more depravity. Truly, they believed, that reason was the only way to truly bring about good. Brute force only led to
All segregation statures are unjust because segregation degrades human traits and harms one’s inner core. So if segregation is morally wrong, it can’t be a just law and Dr. King looks at it as being acceptable to violate the segregation ordinances because it is an unjust law. Another example of an unjust law is when a larger group creates a law that the smaller group couldn’t have a voice in because obstacles prevented them from voting. At the time period different methods kept Negros from becoming registered voters. In other words it wouldn’t be fair to say the governing body that enacted the segregation laws were voted in by the majority, when a large portion didn’t a have voice in the matter.
And it is this unique insight that lets an individual come to a conclusion about certain beliefs. If this insight can be considered sufficient evidence to come to accept theories or arguments about philosophical, or political positions, then religion belief - belief in god, belief in the afterlife, belief in the central historical claims of Judaism or Christianity or Islam” (pg. 278) - should be justified as well. Religion is often subject to the Difference Thesis, as Inwagen puts it, which is the view that “religious beliefs should be held to a stricter evidentiary standard than philosophical or political beliefs...or if they are to be held to the same standard...religious beliefs fare worse under this standard than typical philosophical or political beliefs” (pg. 277).
Mackie point is if Holy Being subsists as well as is a presence that is completely good, all-powerful, all-knowing, then there shouldn’t be reality of evil, and theists would not discard that Holy Being is completely good, omnipotent, and omniscient and along with that they believe in the existence of some evil. I as a theist would reason that immoral occurs because of the free will; Deity sustains some evil since one way or another, these harms are present essential or are ethically reasonable. There could be ethically mitigating motives for God to allow evil that people cannot comprehend or perhaps people can comprehend and just don’t know. The virtuous that is attained would be great significant that the sinful. Supernatural Being knowledge has not any limit, He knows all.
In concordance with Jefferson, religious neutrality in government tangibly helps both religion and government because it ensures that the state may be run in autonomy from the religious agenda and so that the religion does not fall victim to ideological pitfalls that compromise the accuracy of the religion as a whole. Governments are incredibly intricate machines and rely on the fluidity of all involved organizations to function properly. The failure of even one portion of the governing body to function with autonomy causes the entire system to suffer due to lack of synchronization. However, as seen in much of history, a very influential loss of autonomy is spawned by the use of divine right to reinforce the ruling elite. Such a claim was usually a play to maintain the familial dominance
However, these statements contradict each other, so all three cannot be true. The next statement is that there are no limits that can be placed on an all-powerful thing. Also, a wholly good being will eliminate evil as much as possible. If these two statements are true then an all-powerful, wholly good being is able to eliminate all evil in the world.