An individual is the basic unit of society for most Western democracies. As such, laws and the execution of laws (one form of justice) in these societies focus on individual rights. Justice can be seen as two parts. Justice is one sense is reparations, or punishment that a society inflicts upon an individual. This essay looks at texts of Martin Luther King, Sigmund Freud and Thomas Jefferson in order to ascertain each of their guiding philosophies on what consisted of individual rights and justice. Each of them falls in line in a very particular philosophical school of thought with regard to their understandings of these two issues.
In Chapter 3 of Sigmund Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents, it is clear that Freud believes in social contract theory. He believes that rights and justice are created and then governed by a society. What an individual can do outside of the context of society is what he can get away with. Outside of society, a stronger person is free to overcome the weak. He writes that we need a society, because without it “the physically stronger man would deicide them in the sense of his own interest and instinctual impulses. Nothing would be changed in this if this stronger man should in his turn meet someone even stronger than he. Human life in common is only made possible when a majority comes together which is stronger than any separate individual and which remains united against all separate individuals.” (Freud, 71). Freud has a negative view of human nature. He thinks that an individual can act only within a way that the majority has decreed and justice is punishing those, which overstep the pre-established, but arbitrary, lines. Justice for Freud is making the rules equal for all people within a society. For him justice is “the assurance that a law once made will not be broken in favour of an individual” (Freud, 71). But within a society, there is a pact that is struck in order to protect the weak. Freud believes in a zeitgeist, which governs this. He does not believe that there is anything objective or universal about justice or individual rights, they are simple creations of societies, which are creations of groups of people. He thinks an attempt should be made, because otherwise it would lead to chaos, but he does not believe there is any objective ruling governing the duties of these relationships. Zeitgeist. But civilization must make this attempt; otherwise, “the physically stronger man would decide them in the sense of his own interest and instinctual impulses” (Freud, 71). Freud does believe that these rights (and by extension duties) to have a prima facie nature, since he recognizes multiple rights and obligations and understandings of them, “Their social relationships, are regulated—relationships which affect a person as a neighbor, as a source of help, as another person’s sexual object, as a member of a family and a State” (Freud, 71).
Freud believes that society creates individual rights and the execution of them is what he terms justice. For him there is no outside principle. Societies can have vastly different, or polar opposite, conceptions of rights and justice if they choose to. This is extremely different than the sense of justice and individual rights as espoused in the Declaration of independence authored by Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson believes in a universal standard that all “men” are entitled to and if asked where these rights came from he appeals to a higher power of divinity that created it as such, “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect of the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to separation” (Jefferson, 492). Jefferson does not right that the separations from the powers that be come from political disagreement, but rather that the powers that be are in opposition to the nature of human beings (in his 18th century understanding, this only included white males). This is inline with John Locke’s understanding of natural born rights, whose philosophy was read by Jefferson.
This is a document against tyranny. The author of The Declaration of Independence (Jefferson) believes the rule of the king of England to be arbitrary and not based on natural principles, which he claims comes from the creator. “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpation, all having in direct object of the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the States” (Jefferson, 493). Because he “holds these truths to be self evidence,” he is saying that this, unlike the rule of Tyranny, is not arbitrary, but instead based on logic. Essentially, a person could find these truths by looking within. Jefferson believes they can be discovered through logic and introspection. The Declaration of Independence makes its assertions from a place of logos. There are three individual rights that Jefferson believes to be self-evident, which come from the most famous line of the document, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (Jefferson, 493).
Justice in the Declaration of Independence is allowing human beings to execute these three natural born rights—life, liberty and the pursuits of happiness. Implicit is that retribution must be leveled against any citizen that impedes these pursuits, which the King of England has done, “A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people” (Jefferson, 495). The Declaration concludes by reminding its readers that these rights are not debatable, since they are inborn and self evident, which contrasts Freud’s understanding of where rights originate from, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence” (Jefferson, 495).
Martin Luther King Jr., in his Letter from A Birmingham Jail establishes an implicit principle of justice by writing from a place of injustice—a jail cell in Birmingham. But by analyzing what he considers to be injustice, it is possible to glean his conception of justice. There are also moments when he directly explains his notion of justice. He appeals to “the human spirit” so like Jefferson, but unlike Freud, he appeals to a universal conception of justice. This causes his notion of justice transcend the current politics to something intrinsic to the nature of justice of the human being. King takes this notion further than Jefferson, by having it apply to all people, regardless of color or gender. Justice for King is freedom being applied equally and to all, “We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom” (King, 175). King writes from a place of injustice, since there is no freedom to be found within a jail cell, “I am in Birmingham because injustice is here” (King, 164). Individual rights for King are the rights to exercise those same rights found within the declaration of Independence, but to have those rights not qualified by race. In Birmingham, he finds a deprivation of these rights and writes, “Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in The United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known” (King, 164).
Freud and Jefferson have contrary notions of justice and individual freedoms. Freud appeals to the arbitrary nature of them, but thinks that while no universal rule can govern them, they are important to be established. Jefferson appeals to a transcendent and intrinsic nature of justice and rights, which can be, discovered through logic. King also buys into this notion, but believes that the current politics of the time have limited these rights for certain individuals because of their race.
Works Cited
Freud, Sigmund Civilization and Its Discontents 1930
Jefferson, Thomas The Declaration of Independence. 1776 King, Martin Luther Jr. Letter from Birmingham Jail. 1963 Print.
