Philosophy
Compare Views: Obligations of the Citizen
In his ‘letter from Birmingham Jail”, Martin Luther King wrote to eight white clergymen, addressing their disapproval over his nonviolent protests against racial inequality. Martin Luther King answered the charges of him being an outsider, by claiming that anything that happened anywhere in the United States affected everyone else, and that no one was an ‘outsider in the United States. King further addresses the clergymen’s opposition to the black demonstrations. King’s central idea regarding the obligations of the citizen is that it is the duty of the citizen to oppose all laws that are unjust. King holds it as a moral duty to openly oppose such laws, with a willingness to accept penalties that resultantly occur (King).
In contrast, Plato’s ‘Crito’ has Socrates refusing to escape prison, despite entreaties by his friend Crito. Socrates believes it is the obligation of all citizens to obey the law of the land, even if it were inimical. It is for the citizen to get the laws amended, should he find any infirmities (Plato).
Justifications
King clarifies that any law that does not ‘square’ (King) with moral law and the law of God is unjust. Accordingly, King argues that any law that uplifts the human condition is just, while any law degrading the human spirit is unjust. From this prism, King believes that all laws pertaining to segregation are unjust, as they instill a false sense of superiority in the whites and a corresponding false sense of inferiority amongst blacks. Because segregation laws are unjust, King considers it a sacred duty to oppose such laws, and also call upon fellow blacks to do likewise. King further expounds on this premise, drawing attention to the fact that unjust laws make differences legal, while just laws make sameness legal. King explains this point with the argument that in unjust laws, the majority creates rules that it wishes the minority to follow and not itself. In the case of just laws, the laws are universally applied. Similarly, King holds that laws become unjust when the target populace has no voting rights over them. Therefore, King considers a lack of franchise to be a contributory factor behind the prevalence of unjust laws. King makes a nuanced distinction in the case of laws that are just on face value, but unjust in application. He argues that ordinances requiring permission before parades are just laws; however, if applied to prevent anti-segregation marches, such laws become unjust. King further clarifies the mode of opposition to unjust laws. King’s method of opposition is peaceful non-violence, where those involved create tension within society in a peaceful confrontation, and are willing to bear the brunt of the reaction from the state without recourse to violence. King brings forth the example of the Jews in Germany. If one went by upholding the law for the sake of the law, then anti Semitism in Germany was legal, and the resistance to German policies in Hungary was illegal. Using this extreme example, King conforms his stance: that he is for opposing any law that is immoral and not universally applicable, and therefore unjust (King).
According to Socrates, rejecting any one law and acting against it is akin to rupturing the citizen’s contract with the state. Socrates believes that it is incorrect to only partially adhere to the edicts of the State. He argues that ‘even if the powers of the multitude’ (Plato), the lawmakers, ‘inflict terrors’ (Plato), it is immoral and illegal to obey the rules that are to be regarded as correct and disregard the unjust rules. Socrates bases his premise on the fact that a good life is a just and honorable one. Based on this premise, Socrates holds that the wishes of the Athenians, delivered as a majoritarian law, needs to be upheld honorably, and that escaping from prison would dishonor the law. He buttresses his argument by stating that retaliating evil with evil is incorrect, and therefore man should do what he considers is right. He then expounds that the laws of the State are supreme, and if individuals overthrow any law of the state, the state itself is at peril. Socrates considers the state as his benefactor, because apart from the injustice he is going through at the moment, the state has also nurtured him and given him his sense of self. Therefore, if he had to forsake his covenant with the state, he should have done so when he was at liberty to do so, and not when the rules of the state have decreed that he be in prison. In effect, Socrates argues that interlinked laws hold the entire edifice of the state together; if man breaks one law, he breaks them all, and renders the state powerless. Should Socrates choose to escape prison, he would be negating the very existence and power of the state. Therefore, Socrates chooses not to escape, and to honor the laws of the state, in whichever form they are and whether he feels himself wronged by the laws or not (Plato)
Comparison
King and Plato differ in their approach to the laws laid down by the state. While King argues that laws that are unjust must be opposed, Plato, through the words of Socrates, argues that the entire ecosystem of the state is to be taken as one entity, and than a citizen must abide by all the laws of the state. According to Plato, any change in laws must be done from within the system, and not by open confrontation and by breaking the law, as advocated by King
King makes nuances in the arc of laws that a state has. According to King, laws are either just or unjust depending on universal applicability and morality. Socrates holds all laws as supreme covenants as they reflect the voice of the lawmakers, who have been duly elected by the prescribed democratic processes. Therefore, if the democratic process decrees a mob to make the laws, Socrates respects the laws, as not doing so would be tantamount to disrespect for democracy itself.
King supports opposing unjust laws through non-violent direct action, ratcheting up tension in society and forcing the lawmakers to reconsider the laws. Socrates, in contrast, does not believe in taking to the streets to protest against laws. He argues that the law, if deemed unjust, has to be fought against within the ambit of the senate. If the lawmakers deign to change the law, Socrates would then abide with the changed laws.
Analysis
On analysis of the stands taken by King and Socrates, I would argue that the position taken by King has greater merit. No state is perfect. Every society has rules and regulations that are unjust. Many of such rules and regulations are built up on hundreds of years of subjugation and exploitation of a set of people, who are invariably in the minority. Given the fact that democracy involves the voice of the majority, it would be inconceivable for the minority to seek justice within a majoritarian led democracy.
Therefore, the concept of direct action and protest against perceived injustice is an essential ingredient, even a balancing factor, in a democracy. Unless those aggrieved have the option to take recourse to peaceful non-violent protest, many unjust rules would remain stratified and sanctified by the state. In this regard, King’s arguments about the legality of anti-Semitism bring the subject to stark relief. Anyone living in Germany during the Nazi regime could argue that he was merely adhering to the law by reporting against Jews, ultimately causing the holocaust. It could well be argued that the holocaust came about largely because the bulk of the German populace were law-abiding citizens, merely abiding by laid down laws of a majoritarian government.
It is no one’s case to dismiss the arguments of Plato out of hand. In his time and place, Plato, through Socrates, was arguing for building the edifice of society and law. Little did Plato know how the laws could be distorted and turned against minorities. Plato, therefore, held a more romanticized and idealized version of respect for the law. Two thousand years later, King found that the idealized version of respect of the law did not work, and therefore direct action was required. This distinction in terms of the historical context of when Plato and King gave out their arguments serve to place both positions in the right perspective.
Works Cited
King, Martin Luther. “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” OKRA.Stanford.edu. 1963. Web. May 15, 2016.
Plato. “Crito”. Classics.MIT.edu. 360 BCE. Web. May 15, 2016.
