Martin Luther King In Jail Analysis

Improved Essays
From the inside of a jail cell, Martin Luther King Jr. expressed the fact that breaking laws that are not just isn’t wrong, although his actions have landed him in jail he writes with joy, because it is his protest that has landed him in jail, and being in jail means people are paying attention to his cause. He believes that laws that are unjust are only meant to be broken because they are not really laws. As were the Jim Crow laws of degraded the mentality and forced the spirit of African Americans living under these laws plummet. Throughout the letter he stresses the fact that laws that are unjust, should not even be laws and it is more than right to break them simply to make an example of them. Breaking such is what landed him in jail but …show more content…
But the thing is that, laws that are unjust are often forced onto people the same way that the law prohibits. It is quite clear his point of view towards that matter, considering that he deems his life to be less the a law that has betrayed him. He thinks that laws that are unjust are still to be respected but are they really. It is a great misconception that all laws are just and that just because they seem just to some doesn’t make them fair. Why else would Dr. King have the need to protest against unfair treatment by the law itself? It is his protest that has landed him in jail, but from a jail cell he expresses his discontent with the system that has landed him in jail because the only real law he broke was rallying with his brothers and sister who shared his same discontent with the law. It is very moronic for man who can walk out of prison not want to leave, who in their right mind would prefer to be killed by the laws that he so passionately has lived by for seventy years and now he is facing those same very laws that he so dearly protects. So when the question of whether it is right to break unjust laws arises, the answer is more than clear. Because a law that degrades and demoralizes ones self is no law at all, and if exposing this law is illegal isn’t just more right. Socrates believe that is a sort of domino effect when everyone gets to breaking the law after the law does them wrong, but he is wrong, because if in breaking law you get your point across then you can actually make change. A perfect example of this is Dr. King’s cause; he does not care who he has to go through because the need for his people’s sake outweighs anything else in his mind. It is the people of color who are being served the wrong side of the law every time that they are unfairly and unjustly arrested or even lynched by a mob of angry racist people who have nothing better to do with

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    It is understandable that he felt he had no choice but to defy the law. He had real and reasonable concern and suspicion that the new plant would be more harm than good. It is government’s responsibility to submit to the will of the people, not the other way around. When this concept is not followed, it is not the “criminal” to blame but the out-of-line government who forced his…

    • 1023 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    I am not that man. My honesty is broke, Elizabeth; I am no good man. Nothing’s spoiled by giving them this lie that were not rotten long before” (136). Although Proctor considers himself a horrible man, he attempts to be moral in his actions. He decides to adhere to his good name and individual dignity, instead of conforming to the court’s will.…

    • 1366 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Why Unjust Law Is Wrong

    • 1233 Words
    • 5 Pages

    However, according to Martin Luther King Jr., this would be an unjust law. He says that “An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law.” Dr.King thinks that the topic of deporting illegal immigrants is unjust because it goes against the basic individual human rights. The immigrants are not doing anything morally wrong, but they are looking for another chance to start a new life and everyone deserves a second chance. In his letter, Martin Luther King Jr. had written, “Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damage the personality.” The United States is currently enforcing separation between immigrants and citizens of the U.S. Segregation is not helping to develop us.…

    • 1233 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In the situation, the just person is treated as if he were an unjust person, and the unjust person is treated as if he were a just person. The issue is that the different treatments each man receives are extreme opposites and create a biased hypothetical example. Because punishments are specifically for unjust people, they are designed to be unpleasant and are meant to outweigh the benefit of unjust actions to deter unjust people from repeating their actions. When someone is just, there are no benefits designed for just people because people are expected to be just and follow the laws since there would be consequences to face otherwise. The issue with Glaucon’s argument is that the consequences of acting unjustly far outweigh both acting justly and unjustly.…

    • 731 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He fails the assassination attempt on him and upon wallowing on the ground Mr. Mead says, “Another brilliant insight from Mr. Ethics. The world isn’t fair.” (Ferguson, 248). Mr. Mead criticises him for complaining that life is not fair, which signals to Edwin that he does not know that what he is doing is wrong. Mr. Ethics thinks that he has the right to kill Mr. Mead and that it is unfair for him to not be able to achieve that goal. The reason for this is how he perceives what is right or wrong, being that anything benefitting him is considered morally justifiable.…

    • 1487 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Glaucon Justice Analysis

    • 1584 Words
    • 7 Pages

    However, since in reality, there is no ring of Gyges, it is in human’s best interests to do justice, for otherwise they will end up in the chaos. By acting just, a person wants to get justice in return. That is why it is better to be just – to end up in the best realistic option. Oppositely, it is bad to be an unjust person, since by picking injustice, the one will break the agreement and he will get bad things in return. This will lead to a universal injustice that will create the chaos in the society.…

    • 1584 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    You can 't apologize and then do it again. He didn’t “repair the evil”. Lastly, Sophocles makes the point that; “the only crime is pride.” This is a major idea because for many pride rules their life. Being too cool to hang out with someone, or to play a certain sport, these ideas are wrong, yet run some people 's lives. Therefore, this claim of the only crime is pride is valid.…

    • 726 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Is Revenge Ethical?

    • 1865 Words
    • 8 Pages

    And the fact of the matter is that people do tend to abuse ethics on a small scale; while people obey the larger laws a fair percentage of the population tends to treat people outside their circle of friends relatively poorly. And I think it is fair to say that the fact that ethics has a weaker hold on people when it comes to these smaller matters is because there is no enforcement mechanism, even though we have as much reason to act ethically with respect to these minor matters as we do to act ethically in the situations that the law does consider. Thus I think it is reasonable to say that we should be more open to revenge, at least some of the…

    • 1865 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Given this, would Van Den Haag allow for partial clemency in recognition that Williams was seemingly reformed and doing good works? I believe he would not, especially given the apparent lack of remorse or apology on the part of Williams for the crimes he had committed (as described in the case study from the governor’s denial of clemency). He would view the execution of Williams as the best bet for society in sending a strong statement that murder will never be tolerated or treated less harshly than is warranted, rather than relying on the supposed appeal of Williams’s alleged conversion. Moreover, he would likely say, even if we were wrong in our utilitarian calculus in this regard it would still be giving to Williams nothing more than his just deserts. At the worst, a convicted murderer was forced to suffer the just and moral consequences of his actions.…

    • 877 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    James I Tyranny Analysis

    • 771 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Charles I ruling was very controlling in sense that he believed that whatever he did was justified because he had the divine right to rule. In Kishlansky article, he questions Charles I intelligence, many other critiques have gone far to call him stupid because of his lack of knowledge with the avoidable situations he has gotten himself in. Kishlansky also mentions that Charles has a lack of empathy for his subjects. (43) by Charles being disconnected with everyone, it proves the idea of him being a tyrant, since he cannot sympathies with people he does not have a connection with, whatever happens to them he would not feel the least bit of empathy. He sees everyone who crosses him or disagrees with him as an enemy and that just continues the separation he has with his subjects.…

    • 771 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays