Theory and practice: Civil disobedience and the Pursuit of Justice

Type :

Term papers

Pages :

4 pages

Format :

.doc

Published date :

04/23/2009

Category :

Law & contracts

Sub category :

Civil law

Oboulo.com selection criteria

$ 6.95 Add to cart

Summary :

Introduction
Socrates in The Apology
Not letting the superfluous points of the law lead one away from its central push
King's letter from Birmingham Jail
Conclusion
Works cited

Abstract

In the Crito, Socrates makes an argument against the notion of breaking the laws even if they are judged by the public to be unjust. This is because by disobeying the law, one is in effect "attempting to destroy the laws, and indeed the whole city" (Plato 53). Socrates continues along with this argument, first establishing that "one should never do wrong in return, not mistreat any man, no matter how one has been mistreated by him" (52), then arguing through a personification of the law itself that to disobey the edicts of one's land and countrymen is to mistreat the law, and thereby mistreat all people. Though this argument certainly has merit, it contradicts with many of the conclusions that we have come to in the 20th century concerning the nature of justice and civil disobedience. Examples such as Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and specifically Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and their campaigns against the unjust laws which governments forced upon their citizens come to mind as shining examples of the virtue and good work that can only come about through what King calls "creative protest". Who are we to agree with? On the one hand there are Socrates's rational arguments, but on the other there are the practical modern examples in which civil disobedience scored major victories for justice all around the world. This essay will examine this difference specifically by contrasting Socrates's argument against breaking the law with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s defence of civil disobedience as it is made out in his letter from the Birmingham Jail. This essay will not seek to decide one way or the other, but instead to dissolve the seeming contradiction of these two views by showing in what ways they are disanalogous.