Philosophy
Question one
Martin Luther Jr was an avid supporter of the civil rights in the United States of America. As a minister of the church, he advocated for the eradication of the injustice form the fabric of the Society. The colored people were constantly faced with injustice from every sphere of life and, as a result, their dignity was constantly violated. As the president of the Southern Christian leadership, he championed for the rights of the black minorities in the United States of America.
Marin Luther argues that his actions were influenced by the refusal of the Birmingham authorities to negotiate. He was invited to Birmingham to lead the direct action plan that would send a clear message to the city municipality of the grievances of the Negroes. Martin Luther posited that the leadership of the Negroes had waited until the municipal elections were over to communicate the message of urgency through direct action. Direct action was the only way the colored people could achieve negotiation and, therefore, achieve racial justice.
Martin Luther King argued that he was not advocating for the disobedience of the laws but rather a refusal to disobey the laws that were unjust. He quoted St. Augustine who argued that unjust law is not law and therefore it was not plausible to obey unjust laws. He urged the peace loving citizens to engage in civil disobedience of the laws that were discriminatory and degraded the African Americans in US. Martin Luther King was quick to reiterate that the orders to exterminate the Jewish race in Germany were legal and had been legally passed by the Third Reich.
Although the laws were legal, they had taken a different trajectory from justice. It was also illegal to help a Jew in distress by the Hungarians were quick to help them although their actions can be termed as treacherous. Martin Luther’s views corresponded to the argument posited by Saint Thomas Aquinas. Unjust laws could not be considered as law and on the same premise he argued his followers to reject the segregation laws were in operation in the southern states. He urged the states to respect the Supreme Court’s decision on Brown 1954 because it was just as opposed to the segregation law of the southern states.
Question two
Socrates was unjustly sentenced to death for being accused of breaking the law of the land. Before the death penalty, he was given the option of going to exile or facing death penalty. Socrates chose to face the death penalty by arguing that he would be freer by facing death than going to exile. His friend Crito visited him in prison to help him escape. He was willing to use his personal resources to guarantee the escape of Socrates and evade death penalty. Socrates instead chose to remain in prison and face the death penalty. It was better for him to face the death penalty than escape to exile since the public was aware of the expected execution. The city officials were expecting the return of a ship in order to commence the execution. Crito informed him of the need to take care of his family and educate his children. He owed a duty to his friends and family to escape from the prison and educate his children.
Socrates guided Crito along the trajectory of reasoning to reach a conclusion that the Socrates should not escape. He argued that the disobedience of laws will create anarchy in the public. The failure to obey the law of that has been made in public by the sentencing council would incite his followers to disobey the laws. A man had a right to obey the laws of the land which was also the same responsibility that had been bestowed on the citizens by the God. According to Socrates, the society will disintegrate into anarchy if the citizens are not obedient to the laws of the land. It would be self-serving if Socrates escaped to another jurisdiction. The will of the gods was more instrumental in the decision that Socrates was to make. The will of the gods was to ensure that there is peaceful coexistence in the society.
Socrates argued that he could leave Athens if he were granted permission by the Athenian citizens. It was morally wrong to deliberately commit wrong and therefore actions of the Socrates and Crito of escaping would be deliberately chosen wrong instead of the choosing to obey the law. It was a contractual agreement between the society and the city to face the death penalty instead of going to exile. The escape of Socrates from the city would also amount to breach of a contractual agreement. Socrates argued that it was impossible for the city to continue to exist in the verdict of the courts have not forced of law. The act of private citizens should not render the court’s verdicts irrelevant by engaging in activities that are contrary to the verdicts rendered by the courts. Socrates, therefore, chose to obey an unjust law in order to maintain the social harmony of the society gives the court verdicts the required force of law.
Question three
Taking the last corn chip at a party might require the intervention power if the corn chip was preserved for a particular person in the party. Another scenario over the right to take the corn chip is if many other people require the chip. In the first and the second scenario, the person would rightfully take the chip if he or she is granted express permission by the members present at a party. In this way, no harm is caused to one. The actions of the individual will also fall within the harm principle if the individual is the only one that is interests in the corn and, therefore, by taking the chip, harm is done to none.
Prostitution
Prostitution causes harm to the families of those involved in the act. In the event that one of the participants is a married person, his or her partner will be hurt by the actions of the other partner. In that event power can be used to alleviate the long term consequences of the prostitution. However, there is no need to interfere if two consenting adults, causing harm to none elect to engage in prostitution. According to Stuart Mill, in this event the exercise of power will be detrimental to the happiness of the participants.
Helping a person commit suicide
There is a universal consensus that the death result to pain to people. Helping someone to commit suicide would cause pain to his relatives and loss to the state. It is, therefore, necessary for interference. However, in the case of a terminally ill patient in excoriating pain, such an act would alleviate the immense suffering to the individual and family members hence not need to interfere.
