Segregation is the act of separating. In this essay, King is writing to the clergymen from jail that segregation is an unjust law. He went on to explain the difference between just and unjust laws. A just law is a “man-made code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God.” Simply put, a just law is a law that is universally practiced. An unjust law is “a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.” So any law that degrades human personality is unjust.
In his argument, he says that any law that restores and lighten are just laws, and anything that corrupts or are treats people without respect are immoral. After giving his argument he concludes that segregation is something morally wrong. He is giving all this argument because he is trying to tell authority that he is a good normal citizen. He wants and will follow the just laws, and he also thinks laws are something essential for a world to function. Although he still has already proven his point, he starts to get into the philosophical principle of breaking the laws.
Danforth understands Hale’s reasoning, but persist that “there will be no postponement(). This is because Danforth feels that if he is lenient with his decisions, it looks as though he is weak and being unfair to the rest who did not get postponed. Since Danforth has authority over the rest of the court, John Proctor is later executed due to Danforth signature. Additionally, he uses the number of cases he has had in court and the amount he has put in jail as a number to hold over peoples heads. The number Danforth claims is a point of trying to scare those who may being lying and show that Danforth is merciless.
He recognizes that the duty of law enforcement is to not only enforce the law for others but it is also to abide by the laws they are there to enforce. Furthermore, He also believes that the police force are harming the citizens by not obeying the law. “He[Mr. Chiu] has trusted that those with authority will operate morally and will honor, even revere, the truth, values he upholds as well.” (general 239) Those in authority are corrupt and Mr.Chiu attempts to use logic and reason with them. He is still a law abiding citizen but his frustration causes him to grow impatient with those in charge. “ Now you can admit you are guilty,” the chief said[...] “We won’t punish you severely provided you write a self-criticism[...] Mr. Chiu cried.
On April 12, 1963, eight clergymen wrote an open letter, “A Call for Unity”. In this published letter, the clergymen expressed their strong disapproval of the civil rights demonstrations taking place in Birmingham, Alabama. That same day, civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested for protesting without a permit. In his short eleven-day jail sentence, Dr. King directly responded to the clergymen with a letter of his own. In his letter, Dr. King informed his readers about the protests in Birmingham.
- Detail the distinction between just and unjust laws. Why is it important Dr. King make this distinction? - One has a legal and moral responsibility to obey “just” laws because they are a “ man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God.” Any “just” law uplifts human personality. One has a moral responsibility to disobey “unjust” laws because they are “ a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.” Any “unjust” law degrades human
Summary/Assessment: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), which is an organization operating in every Southern state with its headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. He came to Birmingham, Alabama because injustice lies there and helped protest about it in a nonviolent demonstration against racial discrimination. The eight clergymen of the South did not approve of these demonstrations happening which caused Dr. King to be confined in Birmingham Jail cell, writing a letter to them men explaining on why he was in Birmingham and what his reasons were for these protests. He begins to talk about and explain the four basic steps that needed to be followed for any nonviolent campaign. He also gives the audience a better understanding by giving a visual glimpse of what the black community had to endure.
The specific example that H.L.A. Hart uses frequently in defense of his legal positivist position is one of a poorly run monarchy that places their morality into laws. The thing about what they were is doing is that their sense of morality gave an unfair advantage to the monarchy and people of a higher socioeconomic class and degraded the lower class and peasants which would have made up a large part of the population. Inserting their morality into the situation only served to make things worse in a moral sense and also affected people in a very real way. This isn’t to say that natural law is all bad because it is not, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. used natural law in a way that served to drastically increase morality in the America in the 1960’s by using it to defy the laws of the time to worked to integrate African-American individuals into society in a way that was non-violent.
Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” If Martin Luther King Jr. and countless others had not protested during the Civil Right movement there would still be segregation and inequality. Without a doubt, there are times when it is justifiable to break a law in a democratic society. If rights are being denied, if the majority feel it is an unjust law, or even if the minorities (being that they are experts on the subject) feel it is wrong as well. Despite the social contract, it’s a citizen’s responsibility to go against the government at times. Citizens have that right to protest against the government because there are basic rights that the government must provide for their citizens.
Proctor and Hale, are similar because they both see the genuine motivations behind the accusations and struggle to defend the people being harmed. Despite these similarities, they also have major differences in their nature; since they have contrasting levels of devotion to Puritanism and to the moral principles they live by. Reverend Hale and John Proctor are both similar because they discover the malicious intentions of the accusations, and tries to avert further damage dealt by these false accusations. When John first hears about the trials, he doubts the legitimacy of the court proceedings. He even considers going to Salem to persuade the Deputy Governor from convicting innocent people.