Martin Luther King Jr. - Philosophy of law

What is Martin Luther King Jr’s thesis?

We have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws. He believes we are sometimes (but not necessarily always) morally required to obey the law.

Direct action

Political action that seeks to achieve an end directly by the most immediately effective means (strikes, boycotts)

Civil disobedience

The refusal to comply with certain laws as a peaceful form of protest. Ex: Montgomery bus boycott, Birmingham campaign

what is King’s argument in favor of breaking (some) laws

(3 premises + conclusion)

1. There are just and unjust laws

2. People are morally obligated to obey just laws

3. People are morally obligated to disobey unjust laws

Therefore,

Conclusion: We should advocate breaking some laws and obeying others.

Just laws

Laws that conform with moral law or the law of God

Unjust laws

Laws that do not conform with moral law or the law of God

Does King give a proper distinction of just and unjust laws?

Not really. There is so much vagueness to what God he could be talking about, if people even believe in the same God or not.

Varieties of unjust laws

(4 of them)

1. when a law degrades human personality

2. when a majority imposes a law on a minority group, but does not hold themselves to the same standard

3. laws on people who cannot vote

4. when a law is just on paper, but unjust in application

What is King’s argument that segregation is unjust?

(4 premises + 1 conclusion)

1. Segregation gives the segregator false sense of superiority

2. Segregation gives the segregated a false sense on inferiority

So,

3. Segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality

4. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust

Therefore,

Conclusion: All segregation statutes are unjust

What does King say is the best way to break unjust laws?

Through civil disobedience

What is one objection one might pose to King’s defense of civil disobedience and how might he respond?

Objection: people should take action through legal channels instead of civil disobedience.

Response: it is taking too long to go through legal channels that civil disobedience in this case is necessary.

What is a second objection one might pose to King’s defense of civil disobedience and how might he respond?

Objection: acts of civil disobedience may lead to violence

Response: King would say this is not a logical assertion. The real violence is on those who do not have constitutional rights.