Comparing The Crito And Letters From A Birmingham Jail

In the article “Letter from Birmingham Jail” Martin Luther King Jr. responds to clergymen who described his civil rights activities as “unwise and untimely”. Dr. King argues that while just laws should be obeyed, unjust laws aren’t binding because they go against decent morality and they degrade human lives. He explains the three-hundred-year struggles by African Americans to gain their basic rights and responds to criticism of being an extremist for trying to force change on this matter. Ultimately his reasoning is that those attempting to find a resolution to the injustice and unequal laws of the land should not be punished if they are doing so nonviolently, even if they break some just laws. I argue in favor of this idea that unjust laws

In the reading, Crito came to Socrates requesting for him to escape prison. Crito presented some arguments as to why Socrates should leave while in return, Socrates presented counter arguments as to why he should stay. In the end, Socrates chose to stay in prison and go along with his death sentence. Socrates doing this was the correct choice because Crito failed to present a compelling argument to why he should leave (54-end). Socrates is already of old age, so why damage his reputation by escaping and living the little years he had left to suffer a lifetime of guilt, hatred, and throwing away a possibility for those left behind to witness the flaws in their governmental system.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter From Birmingham Jail Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter From Birmingham Jail was his most infamous publication. Influenced by Thoreau and Gandhi for their similar ideas on peaceful protesting injustice in society, King created a group of nonviolent protesters across the south known as the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). King’s whole movement was based around being nonviolent, King saw this as a way to get his message across peacefully and while being taken seriously. This is known as civil disobedience.

An unjust law is a mode that is out of harmony with the moral law” (King). Dr. King emphasized that there are certain laws that people should follow, while there are others that people should not follow because they are morally wrong. For example, Americans should follow the Brown v. Board of Education ruling because it is morally right. However, the country should not follow segregation because it is morally wrong.

Throughout history there have been influential people who have advocated for certain ideals that have been known as radical or, for some, idiotic. With most changes that have occurred in history, it starts off with one person making a stand and attempting to change something. From that person comes others who have been influenced and make changes for themselves. One of the changes that has been most controversial was the topic of slavery in the 19th and 20th century. David Henry Thoreau was a 19th century author who wrote a popular essay titled, “Civil disobedience”.

In this paper I will argue that Socrates’s argument at 50a-b of the Crito would be not harming his fellow citizens by breaking the laws. Based on the readings from Plato’s The Five Dialogues, I will go over the reasoning of Socrates’ view on the good life. I will then discuss the three arguments Crito has for Socrates regarding his evasion of the death sentence including the selfish, the practicality, and the moral arguments. I will deliberate an objection to the argument and reply to the objections made in the paper and conclude with final thoughts. Socrates argues in the Crito that he should not escape or disobey the law because it is unethical.

By breaking the law his soul would be ruined and a ruined soul is not worth living with. This goes back to when he said that the really important thing is not to live but to live well. Also, when he dies he would enter Hades as an outlaw and will not be well welcomed. Therefore, he believes that he should stay and face his execution because it is better to die than to live with a ruined soul. Socrates uses all of these points to support his main argument which is that escaping jail would be morally incorrect.

Oppression is a continuous issue in societies globally. In United States history African Americans are a prime example of people that have been oppressed. During the 1800s and 1900s many reforms took place that was to help advance the lives of African Americans. Although the reforms were put into place African Americans continued to live in a society which they were oppressed, degraded, and seen as inferior. From this period of U.S. history many works of literature were created that expressed their views on how to approach and resolve the issue of oppression.

He claims that this is how he has been able to live a long life in Athens and that he never meant any harm to the state. Socrates believes that for

He held that upright life is the only life worth living. To him, justice was a matter of knowledge and hence, a truth aspect. Meanwhile, he honored and acknowledged his duty to obey the Laws of the state. From Socrates' perspective, Laws are absolute.

The Social Contract Plato’s Crito depicts a conversation between Socrates and Crito. Socrates’ friends intend to help him escape from prison before he is executed. Their conversation touches upon subjects like justice, injustice and the appropriate response to injustice. Socrates argues that one must not answer to injustice with more injustice as that would be an injury to the laws and to the city of Athens.

Socrates bases this view of justice on the worth of living a good life. “And is life worth living for us with that part of us corrupted by unjust actions” (47e) If we corrupt our soul with injustice, our life would not be worth living, therefore one must never commit an injustice. “When one has come to an agreement that is just with someone, one should fulfill it.”(49e) It is this agreement with the Laws that Socrates would be violating, if he were to

King distinguishes between just and unjust laws by explaining the difference between them; he explains the moral affect each one has, the unfair way the majority used unjust laws, and the reason breaking unjust laws is okay. Now then, King uses morality to help explain the difference between just and unjust laws. King says “A just law is a man-made law that squares with the moral law or the law of God.” (356) He goes on to say “Unjust…….

King addresses the characteristics of unjust laws in 3 points. First point being that just laws are always harmonious with natural morale law. Second point being that a just law is one that uplifts human personality as opposed to degrading human personality. Lastly, a just law can only be created in the most democratic manner possible and if it is not, the minority automatically has the right to disobey the law because they had no say in the creation of the law. As for the first point, a natural morale law must be measured by our natural human sense.

One reason is if you obey an unjust law, then you are unjust yourself. This is invalid given that disobeying any law makes you unjust. Also, Socrates explains to Crito that what the majority thinks “cannot make a man either wise or foolish, but they inflict things haphazardly” (Crito 47). What the majority thinks is not always the right thing. People are influenced by others who disobey the law which can eventually lead up to anarchy, so why would you want to disobey a law?