While reading “The Crito” By Plato and Martin Luther King’s “Letters from a Birmingham Jail” I will use these two pieces of literature as a springboard to answer whether it is moral to break a law that you consider unjust. I will start first by analyzing Plato’s dialogue “The Crito”. The conversation takes place in a prison; this is where Socrates is awaiting his execution, and will be serving out the last days of his life. Socrates is visited by Crito, an old loyal friend, a generous friend who lacks ethical teaching and I also question his morals. His reason for visiting is as simple as persuading Socrates to escape.
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.
2. Thoreau refers to civil disobedience not merely as a right but as a duty to emphasize the need for individual to have the capability to defend their honest thoughts. As it states, “I think we should be men first, and subjects afterwards” (Thoreau 941). Thoreau wishes for the individuals in society to be able to preach their truth, even if it means to display non-conformity to the government expressing unjust laws. 4.
1. Divine Command Theory states that a morally right action is one that is willed by God. A Non-consequentialist theory is one that asserts the rightness of an action does not depend on its consequences. In this view, God is a divine lawgiver, his laws define morality. DCT qualifies as a non-consequential theory because the balance of good over bad does not matter because if God states an action morally right or wrong, then it is.
But if God is not limited in either power or benevolence, why is there evil in the world?” In this paper, I will respond to this quote to defend that God is not limited in either power or benevolence and how evil still exists so that we as humans understand what the term good is. I believe that God has the power to prevent evil but chooses not to because he wants us to know the true meaning of being good. God shows us he is all loving by having
Right after Socrates has stated his predictions to the people who sentenced him to death and after he told his friends/judges the first reason why death is a good thing, he tells his friends the second reason why death is a good thing saying, “Let us reflect in another way, and we shall see that there is another reason to hope that death is a good, for it is one of two things: either death is a state of nothingness and utter unconsciousness, or, as men say, is a change and migration of the soul from this place to another.” (par.45). What Socrates is saying in this quote is that, death might be a good thing if death is one of two things, never ending sleep or the soul travels from one place to another. After Socrates explained to his judges what death is like as an endless sleep, he states how this kind of death is a good thing by saying, “Now if death is like this, I say that to die is as gain, for eternity is then only a single night.” (par.45). Right after Socrates said how the first way death is a good thing, he states his second reason how it is a good thing by saying, “But if death is a journey to another place, and there, as men say, all the death reside, what good, my friends and judges, can be greatest than this?” What needs to be analyze by both quotes are the first parts, “Now if death is like this,” and “But if death is a journey to another place,” because what both of these two parts of quotes have in common is the word ‘if’. With the word if, Socrates is saying that he does not actually know that these things will happen after death, but it might happen.
I agree with Pres. Eisenhower’s statement up to a point. I do not believe you can change the hearts of men with law but you need the laws to make sure that the people who might not agree with the content of the law respects it. Once you have laws, it needs to be enforced. To change the hearts of men, it can only be done through our Heavenly Father.
In the case of the mentally ill, the philosopher-kings, using their immense knowledge, should see what form of “soul purification” can be provided to these individuals. All expenses will be incurred by the patient’s family and should they refuse to take care of this individual, they must be exiled for failing to take care of the relative who is an extension of their own body and soul. Mental treatment should be ongoing until poverty threatens the livelihood of the families in which case the family should decide whether to voluntarily leave the city with the mentally ill or have the relative executed. In both cases, the City will benefit as the craftsman group will see the freedoms they have been granted by the guardians while coming at no financial cost to the
This means that beliefs simply cannot be changed by outside decrees or forced into submission by others. Jefferson even argues that this is the way that God intended things to be. The mind was created free by God and, because it cannot be forced to change, Jefferson claims that it is clear that God wishes it to stay free. This assertion of the essential freedom of the mind has a number of implications about the importance of protecting that freedom. Jefferson expresses that leaders who force their religious opinions on men act with “impious presumption” and stresses that rules such as those that require a man to financially support opinions the man disbelieves are both tyrannical and sinful (PR 18).
Let us see who is the strongest”. This citation shows that Thoreau did not want to follow the laws. Thoreau also believed in living life by following moral law and not law stated in the constitution. Thoreau also believed that the government does best if it does not rule over the people. In the essay Civil Disobedience it says “That government is best which governs least”.
According to Miller this is appealing to personal experience, King first hand experiences this when he gets arrested. He strongly feels that it is unjust to put a man in jail just to deny him his freedom of peaceful protest. The whites know and as well as himself knows that he is being wrongly accuse and he doesn 't deserve this unjustness. As well as appealing to ethos his character in this paragraph establishes that he is one of knowledge, he analyzes and argues in a manner that is striking. An example is when king puts into play that he agrees with laws but then says he will not stand for a law that is wrongly used to deny him his
It isnt right for somebody that has done something bad and then they dont get in trouble. But that is what i think about the laws because if somebody has laws you need to respect the laws but that is how i feel about hammburai code is fait to
A just and an unjust law. A just law is the one that must always be obeyed for it is human-made and squares with the law – Word – of God and an unjust law is the one who must always be disobeyed for it’s a human law that goes against any religious teachings. Therefore, King believed that any law that goes against the natural law – God’s law and principles - is an unjust law, just as Thomas Aquinas stated. “An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.” Therefore, if said law doesn’t uplift people’s humanity we have the right to break it. And in his case, fight for it to be