Mlk's Stance: Breaking Laws To Enforce Justice

Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested on several occasions for breaking the law during the Civil Rights Movement. In his 'Letter from Birmingham Jail', he wrote about the moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. He differentiated between just and unjust laws, stating that a just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God. Conversely, an unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. He argued that there could be various reasons why a law lacks legitimacy and authority, such as being passed by an unfair procedure. For instance, in many Southern states, only the white minority could vote, despite the country having a Black majority. King's views towards the law can be divided into two categories: law as an obstacle and law as an opportunity.

The difference between just and unjust laws

Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested on several occasions for breaking the law during the Civil Rights Movement. He believed that there was a moral responsibility to disobey laws that conflicted with the moral code. In his view, unjust laws are no laws at all, and therefore there is no obligation to obey them.

In his "Letter from Birmingham Jail", King differentiates between just and unjust laws. He writes, "A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law." He gives the example of segregation laws, which he deems to be unjust, and therefore morally wrong.

King also acknowledges that there are laws that are just on their face but unjust in their application. For instance, he was arrested for parading without a permit, which is a just law in itself. However, when this law is used to preserve segregation and deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest, it becomes unjust.

King's views towards the law can be categorized into two groups: law as an obstacle and law as an opportunity. Much of the civil rights movement was a struggle against racially discriminatory laws or racially neutral laws that were used to attack civil rights activism. For King, unjust laws and the courts that enforced them were obstacles in the pursuit of racial justice. On the other hand, he also recognized the importance of laws that advanced racial justice, such as school desegregation orders and non-discrimination requirements for restaurants and private employers.

The moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws

Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested on several occasions for breaking the law during the Civil Rights Movement. He believed that there was a moral responsibility to disobey laws that conflicted with the moral code.

In his "Letter from Birmingham Jail", King differentiates between just and unjust laws. He writes, "A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law". He goes on to say that "I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court because it is morally right, and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances because they are morally wrong".

King acknowledges that there is a moral responsibility to obey just laws, but also a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. He agrees with St. Augustine, who said that "an unjust law is no law at all". King argues that if a law is unjust, there is no obligation to obey it and no right to enforce it. He believed that these rights are not created by government or social agreement but are genuine rights that exist independently.

King also discusses the idea of a law that "is just on its face and unjust in its application". He uses the example of being arrested for parading without a permit, explaining that while there is nothing wrong with requiring a permit for a parade, when that ordinance is used to preserve segregation and deny citizens their First Amendment right to peaceful assembly, it becomes unjust.

King's views towards the law can be divided into two categories: law as an obstacle and law as an opportunity. Much of the civil rights movement involved struggling against racially discriminatory laws or racially neutral laws that were used to attack civil rights activism. King's powerful rhetoric and nonviolent resistance tactics made him one of the most influential figures in the fight for equal rights.

The strategic value of accepting punishment

Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested on multiple occasions for breaking the law during the Civil Rights Movement. He believed that it was necessary to disobey laws that conflicted with the moral code. In his view, there are two types of laws: just and unjust. He argued that one has a moral responsibility to obey just laws and a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.

King willingly accepted imprisonment for breaking unjust laws. One reason for accepting punishment is to show that the law was broken out of concern for justice, not convenience or criminal intent. Accepting punishment could also induce public sympathy for the victims of the law. Civil disobedience is a public act in which a person not only breaks the law but ensures others see them doing it, with the aim of changing that law.

King's non-violent approach was strategic. He believed that if activists fought back against the police, the public would probably side with the authorities. In contrast, by refusing to fight back, the victims of injustice could win the public's support and possibly even the sympathy of those attacking them. This strategy was designed to change the law and gain broader support for the Civil Rights Movement.

King's approach to civil disobedience and his willingness to accept punishment were key components of his broader strategy for advancing racial justice. He understood that legal reform alone was not sufficient to uproot entrenched patterns of inequality. Social action and changing public opinion were also necessary. By accepting punishment for breaking unjust laws, King engaged in a powerful form of protest that helped to build momentum for the Civil Rights Movement and advance the cause of racial equality.

The role of non-violent protest

King acknowledged that there is a moral responsibility to obey just laws, but he also asserted that there is a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. He differentiated between the two, stating that a just law "is a man-made code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God". Conversely, an unjust law is one that is "out of harmony with the moral law". King's categorization of laws as just or unjust was not limited to laws that explicitly mentioned race. Segregation laws, he argued, were unjust, and therefore, he could "urge men to disobey segregation ordinances because they are morally wrong".

King also addressed the more complex situation of a law that "is just on its face and unjust in its application". For instance, he acknowledged that there was nothing inherently wrong with requiring a permit for a parade, but when this ordinance was used to "preserve segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and peaceful protest", it became unjust.

King's non-violent resistance and willingness to accept imprisonment for breaking such unjust laws were pivotal in his fight for equal rights. He believed that by accepting the punishment, he was engaging in a public act of protest that demonstrated his commitment to justice rather than criminal intent. This approach was instrumental in garnering public support for the civil rights cause and challenging the conventions and cultural norms of his time.

King's non-violent protest tactics were also influenced by his understanding of the role of government in creating and enforcing laws. He argued that governments claim two special moral powers: legitimacy and authority. Legitimacy refers to the permission to create and enforce rules over others, while authority refers to the power to create an obligation to obey those rules. King challenged the assumption that citizens always have a duty to obey the law, even when it is unjust. He asserted that unjust laws lack legitimacy and authority, and therefore, there is no obligation to obey or enforce them.

In conclusion, Martin Luther King Jr.'s non-violent protest tactics were a critical aspect of his civil rights activism. Through his strategic approach, King brought attention to unjust laws and challenged societal norms, ultimately contributing to the advancement of racial equality.

The limits of legal reform

Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested on several occasions for breaking the law during the Civil Rights Movement. He believed that there was a moral responsibility to disobey laws that conflicted with the moral code. In his view, unjust laws were no laws at all, and therefore there was no obligation to obey them.

King's views on the law can be divided into two categories: law as an obstacle and law as an opportunity. Much of the civil rights movement was a struggle against the law—against racially discriminatory laws or racially neutral laws that were used to attack civil rights activism. Southern police arrested civil rights protesters, including King, for violating various criminal codes, such as disturbing the peace, marching without a permit, trespassing, and conspiracy.

King often struggled to explain why he believed civil rights activists were justified in breaking certain laws while also condemning segregationists for their defiance of federal civil rights requirements. He differentiated between just and unjust laws, stating that a just law is one that aligns with the moral law or the law of God, while an unjust law is out of harmony with the moral law. Since segregation laws were morally wrong, King urged people to disobey them.

However, King recognized the limits of legal reform. He warned against getting caught up in legalism and needless fights in lower courts, as this played into the hands of those in power. Instead, he emphasized the importance of organized social action and direct-action protest. King understood that the law by itself was limited in its ability to affect hearts and minds, and that true change required a broader political and social struggle.

King's skepticism toward the efficacy of legal change when unaccompanied by social action was one of his significant contributions to the struggle for racial equality. He argued that citizens have a personal responsibility to do what is right, rather than simply following the law or societal expectations.

Frequently asked questions