As a citizen in a country you must obey the laws of the land and not be a troublemaker in society. For Martin Luther King Jr, Crito and Socrates, they have different views on how to do things as a citizen; King wants to disobey laws in order to end racism in the south, Crito wants to get Socrates out of jail, and Socrates wants to serve his death sentence because that’s what he believes is the right thing to do.
In Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963 Martin Luther King was locked up in a jail cell for protesting peacefully against discrimination. While sitting in his cell, King wrote an open letter to tell people that it is morally right to disobey laws that seem unfair and take direct action rather than waiting for the courts to do something about …show more content…
and Crito they are a bit similar; King believes that laws should be broken if they are unjust and Crito wants to bust Socrates out because he doesn’t want to lose him. Comparing Martin Luther King and Crito, they were both willing to break the law in order to achieve their goals. Martin Luther King had an excellent reason to break laws because the ones in Birmingham were against African Americans and he had wanted to bring awareness of this to the whole country. As a citizen to society, King wanted change for his people and will do whatever it takes to make it happen, for example doing protests or marches. On the other hand, Crito was attempting to break the law by trying get Socrates out of jail if he were to succeed. Trying to break someone out of jail is not the most legal way of doing it, but Crito just wanted to save his friend. As a citizen, Crito should have done nothing because the most legit way would be letting the court decide if Socrates is innocent or guilty. Martin Luther King and Crito have the same views of doing what is right even if it involved breaking some rules; King wanted to bring awareness to the whole country about racial segregation against African Americans by breaking laws that were unjust and for Crito he wanted to save his best friend from being executed by breaking him …show more content…
Socrates wants to be the good citizen and face his consequences for even though he did not commit any because he feels that’s the right thing to do for himself and everyone else. Socrates was committed to the execution even with Crito convincing him to go with him. For Martin Luther King, he was in jail for peacefully protesting against white leaders about ending segregation. Even though he did not really commit any crimes, he still went to jail, but by doing so he wrote his letter from the Birmingham jail. I think they have different views because King viewed that he had to end all of this segregation by breaking them. For him, it was the only way to get to his goal which was to end segregation in Birmingham and in the country. Socrates view was that even though he did not commit any crime, he was going to serve his execution because it would not be good for him or the city of Athens. As a citizen, you have to obey the law; Socrates does that, but not Martin Luther
In Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963 Martin Luther King was locked up in a jail cell for protesting peacefully against discrimination. While sitting in his cell, King wrote an open letter to tell people that it is morally right to disobey laws that seem unfair and take direct action rather than waiting for the courts to do something about …show more content…
and Crito they are a bit similar; King believes that laws should be broken if they are unjust and Crito wants to bust Socrates out because he doesn’t want to lose him. Comparing Martin Luther King and Crito, they were both willing to break the law in order to achieve their goals. Martin Luther King had an excellent reason to break laws because the ones in Birmingham were against African Americans and he had wanted to bring awareness of this to the whole country. As a citizen to society, King wanted change for his people and will do whatever it takes to make it happen, for example doing protests or marches. On the other hand, Crito was attempting to break the law by trying get Socrates out of jail if he were to succeed. Trying to break someone out of jail is not the most legal way of doing it, but Crito just wanted to save his friend. As a citizen, Crito should have done nothing because the most legit way would be letting the court decide if Socrates is innocent or guilty. Martin Luther King and Crito have the same views of doing what is right even if it involved breaking some rules; King wanted to bring awareness to the whole country about racial segregation against African Americans by breaking laws that were unjust and for Crito he wanted to save his best friend from being executed by breaking him …show more content…
Socrates wants to be the good citizen and face his consequences for even though he did not commit any because he feels that’s the right thing to do for himself and everyone else. Socrates was committed to the execution even with Crito convincing him to go with him. For Martin Luther King, he was in jail for peacefully protesting against white leaders about ending segregation. Even though he did not really commit any crimes, he still went to jail, but by doing so he wrote his letter from the Birmingham jail. I think they have different views because King viewed that he had to end all of this segregation by breaking them. For him, it was the only way to get to his goal which was to end segregation in Birmingham and in the country. Socrates view was that even though he did not commit any crime, he was going to serve his execution because it would not be good for him or the city of Athens. As a citizen, you have to obey the law; Socrates does that, but not Martin Luther