Justice is the quality of being just or fair. Additionally, can be defined as the exercise of administrative law; the act of determining and assigning rewards or punishments. Moreover, justice is significant in determining how governance in a country can be judged. On the contrary, injustice can be termed as the quality of being unfair and biased especially in governance by the use of unjust laws which promote favoritism and inequality in resource distribution.
Conscience, the sense of right and wrong, in most cases is used as a guide in obeying just rules and disobeying unjust rules. Martin (1), who was by the time of his arrest the president of the southern Christian leadership, supports this statement that conscience plays a significant role in obeying just laws and disobeying unjust laws. Thoreau, an abolitionist and a philosopher, sites similar opinions but with a slight difference. In regard to these, this essay is meant to: Analyze the relationship that exists between the two philosophers, compare and contrast their positions in regard to law and justice.
To begin with, the two social activists agree on the fact that really a sense of right and wrong propels one or a group of people to rebel against unjust laws. Martin (162) argues that he was in Birmingham jail basically because his conscience of doing right and wrong could not withstand the injustices that prevailed in the black community. He therefore attributes his actions to his personal understanding between just and unjust laws. In addition, he perceives a just law as being the one that man makes in relation with the moral law or law of God while he describes unjust laws as being the ones that do not show cohesion with the moral laws. To sum up, Martin considered this as his conscience which was the driving factor towards his disobedience of the law by organizing a boycott in the White stores of Birmingham.
On the other hand, Henry, in his book “Civil Disobedience” agrees with Martin’s Position; that conscience is the guiding factor in obeying just laws and disobeying unjust laws. He reasons that, law should not be respected so much at the expense of the right. Additionally, he argued that the only obligation he had a right to assume; was to do any time what he always thought as being right. This is related to King’s views. Also, according to Henry’s conscience, the motto “that government is best which governs least,” is unacceptable and untrue. He contradicts this by arguing “that the government is best which governs not all”. He additionally argues that a biding by this motto is by the decision of men themselves which basically applies conscience as the driving factor towards this decision (Henry 1). In addition, Henry requests citizens to make decisions concerning which kind of government to choose basing on the respect it commands on their rights. He also argues critically that, when power lies in the decision of the people, a majority are the ones who always have their way because they are most likely in the right and are also strong physically. This is purely related to Martins view of conscience regarding justice and injustice (2).
I believe that Martin had read Henry’s “Civil Disobedience” as an important document regarding justice and injustice. This is because of the fact that, Martin’s views regarding justice and injustice are more similar to those of Henry. I feel that the reason for their similarity can be justified by the following illustrations: First, Henry was advocating for “civil disobedience” which is the active way of refusing to obey certain laws and commands to the government without resorting to physical violence. He argues that the decision of choosing between protesting and rebuking injustice lies between the shoulders of the few who know and understand their rights (6). This was the same gospel Martin was spreading; the need to create some tension in the mind so that individuals could see the need to wake up and be on their senses and be able to protest and resist any kind of prejudice and racism. Besides this, Martin was preaching for the non-violent demonstrations which were supposed to be peaceful and directed towards negotiations (162). This explicitly demonstrates that King (1963) must have read Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” (1849). In addition, just by the fact that Henry is among the early activists, philosophers and abolitionists suggestive that Martin who was by far younger than Henry, must have referred to his literature as a source of reference.
Both Martin and Henry strongly believe on the fact that conscience is the guiding factor in doing right and wrong. Martin’s views are similar to Henry’s perceptions on the same point in the following ways: First, the fact that both of them base their arguments on their own personal perceptions of right and wrong regarding the injustices and unfairness the black folks are subjected to by the whites, expressly explains their strong believe in conscience guiding ones obedience to the laws. Martin says “I’m here because I was invited here. I’m here because I have organizational ties here, but more basically, I’m in Birmingham because injustice is here” (1).This explicitly explains that Martin’s conscience is the guiding factor towards his spearheading of demonstrations against the biased laws.
There is also a strong comparison in what they both view as just and unjust laws and the important role conscience plays in ensuring whether they should be obeyed or disobeyed. They both argue that ‘just laws’ are man- made laws that are in relation to the to the moral laws or laws of God while they claim that, unjust laws are the ones that are inconsiderate of the moral laws. In this regard, they both advocate for people to use their conscience in rebuking unjust laws but embracing the just laws. Additionally, they share the same opinion that, the right to choose the right government or reject it lies in the people; they can decide to live with the unjust laws or push for the amendments of the unjust laws to suit every citizen. Martin specifically says:
“Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in the society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood” (162).
Finally both Henry and Martin are seen as being inspirational by anarchists. Moreover, they do not advocate for the eradication of the government but, improvement. Henry says “I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government” ( 5) while King says that, “In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rapid segregationist; that would be anarchy. One who breaks the unjust laws must do constructive, non-violent tension which is necessary for growth (Martin, 162). These two comparisons explicitly explain the relationship between Henry’s and King’s positions.
Martin’s points of view regarding justice and injustice at some point contradict with the points of argument Henry. Martin argues that the only way to stop the injustices posed by the government is by staging non-violent protests, involving the majority, which will make the government realize the need of staging a table for negotiations (162). On the contrary, Henry thinks that the only way that citizens can eradicate the unjust laws imposed to them by the supreme government; is by individuals rebelling against these laws and seeking for a revolution in a non-violent way. He argues that “a wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail in the power of the majority”. In addition, he argues that, this revolution can only be achieved by people using their conscience and their power of voting in choosing between which government to vote for and which to vote against (7). In summary, Henry was promoting the philosophical act of individuality. He argues that one man can stand up to government and society, driven by his own conscience of what is wrong and right. He also says that “but when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer” (5) which means that, when the majority of the population are dissatisfied with the mode of governance; revolution and rebellion follow.
