Martin Luther King Jr. writes, "I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances because they are morally wrong." When King writes "they are morally wrong," he is contending that the segregation ordinances are in opposition to eternal and natural law. 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.
According to the author, rejecting rehabilitation was a mistake based on three reasons. First, their faith in the law to restrict state power made sense in the progressive 1960s but ultimately was a "bad bet" when the courts and legislators turned conservative. Second, the critics ' embrace of a justice model undermined the social welfare purpose of corrections, saying, in essence, that the state should not be in the business of providing services to offenders. Third, even more consequential, the justice model rejected the idea that corrections had a utilitarian purpose-that this system should be used to prevent crime. 2.)
“Was not John Bunyan an extremist? … Was not Abraham Lincoln an extremist?” not only repetition but ad verecundiam because Martin Luther King uses significant figures who stood up for important matters, which creates an ethos to his point of being an extremist. Also, “Will we be extremist for hate, or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice, or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?”
Many white Southerners tried to resist the change, claiming they were only helping the black population or keeping balance by “protecting” them from what radical thinking could spring from. Thankfully later on in the century, this racist mindset was brought to light and black civil rights activists became more prominent figures as they fought for equal opportunities. A battle that had arguably happened much later than it should have, set off by the works and efforts of those like Griffin, who went against the flow of societal norms in risky experiments. So while there were flaws and mistakes in John Griffin’s experiment in Black Like Me, that same experiment helped bring the mindset of many inside and even outside of the South into a better, less deprived view of the world around them with some resistance.
The freedoms of men and women are guaranteed under law, yet somehow we tell eachother that our speech is incorrect and should be looked down upon. How can the liberties of other people be less valuable than than your own? Americans tend to simply push an opposing opinion out of their way, deeming it invaluable and useless, but when someone does that same thing to them, they are up in arms about their right to free speech. Walter Lippman uses powerful pathos and strong diction in his article The Indispensable Opposition to develop his argument that individuals must respect and listen to other’s opinions in order for society to grow as a whole. People’s emotions are always hard to decipher and angle so that their opinion is altered, or even changed.
So instead of locking them up we should start promoting peace and welcome, instead of ironically raging terror over those who run because of terrors. We need to look at the roots of our problem, and improve our society as a whole. These people that are referred to as “illegal”, are humans too. They do not, in any way, deserve to die. And that’s why our government proposing the law to extend the time a person can be held in poorly maintained detention centres with cold-hearted treatment, is absurd.
In response to that Martin Luther King Jr. said that “one has a moral responsibility to disobey just laws; because if we did not disobey them, then unjust acts would continue to occur, causing our country to be harmed.” According to king he believes that we should challenge unjust laws if and only if you are ready and willing to accept the punishment that follows (MLK). 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.
As an American, and a human service professional, my primary job is to address the hypocrisy and moral corruption and confliction of those individuals and systems who solely convey America’s constitutional banner, but neglects its moral practicality. Americans think that by making everyone equal, constitutively and legislatively, we would effortlessly develop a moral society. Morality assumes that people have advantages over others such physical wellness, as skin-pigmentation, sexual identification, autonomy from mental illness and it dictates that we do not take advantage of those who are disadvantaged. Systems and society at large should not use our differences to justify the unjustifiable: inhumanly treatment and exclusion of other humans.
These attacks won’t continue to work on black conservatives. We’re already seeing a shift in this country. The policies of the left have been rejected. Even by black people. Sure, Donald Trump didn’t get the majority of the black vote.
Speech Essay In “I have a Dream” by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. he wants to persuade us. This nation is corrupt and powerless because of segregation. We will not solve this problem with violence, but with peace; therefore, not causing problems.
19). Here we see Kings argument fall under the strategies logos and ethos. This time he appeals to personal experience under logos. His argument to the clergymen is that laws are just but they can become unjust when they are used for the wrong reasons. According to Miller this is appealing to personal experience, King first hand experiences this when he gets arrested.
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. King argued it was justifiable to break this law because a law couldn’t be just when the Negro communities weren’t given the same rights to vote on the segregation laws.
Stare Decisis Examining Hofsherier’s equal protection analysis the majority in Johnson not only held that the analysis was wrong but also concluded that stare decisis did not compelled to court to follow Hofsheier as precedent. In addition, Johnson indicated that Hofsheier’s analysis was faulty, which resulted in a number of sex crimes against minors. The Court referred to these “broad consequences” as the reason why stare decisis should not be allowed in order to correct an error in our constitutional jurisprudence. Stare decisis is one of the most important doctrines for the legal system.
As a society we have to understand that the system oppresses certain individuals. One can be highly qualified for a job but not receive it because of their race. Black people work hard but they don’t make it as far as many other minorities it’s because of their race, the color of their skin inhibits them from achieving every goals they want to, the system is not in their favor. As learned in class Social justice and equality for all people should be of paramount importance. Society needs to stand against prejudice and make sure very member of the community is not discriminated against us.
Another perspective surrounding the American criminal justice system is that people only criticize the system because the results they wanted did not occur. Some people go as far as to say, “THE criminal justice system doesn 't work” (Haberman). But why do people have these strong feelings against the American criminal justice system? Haberman’s interesting viewpoint answers that question when he says, “It seems to be a popular pastime: trashing the system when it does not produce the results you want.” From this quotation one can consider that some people disparage the system so heavily because they disagree with the rulings, not because the judgements are wrong, but simply because they do not like them.