In Crito, a dialogue written by Plato, the Greek philosopher Socrates is sentenced to death because of corrupting the youth, creating new gods, and being an atheist. Centuries later, another prominent figure, Martin Luther King, Jr., is jailed for civil disobedience in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963. When questioned of their imprisonment, Plato and King, Jr. are both determined to maintain justice despite the injustices charged against them, but for Plato, justice means upholding the law at all costs since one should do no wrong, whereas King is concerned with reforming the law, therefore doing wrong could make a “right”.
To both King and Socrates, a portion of injustice in law damages justice as a whole. When Crito attempts to persuade Socrates …show more content…
King explains that a citizen has a “moral responsibility to obey just laws,” which parallels Socrates’s belief that an Athenian’s has a moral duty to the city’s law (King 3). Another similarity between Crito and “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” is the way the law and justice is seen as a united, interrelated entity. In Crito, harming one law means harming all the laws and King sees injustice similarly. By examining the laws that oppress African Americans, King concludes that “Injustice anywhere” is injustice “everywhere” (King 1). Both Socrates and King conclude that laws and injustice, respectively, are are interrelated, meaning “whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly” (King 1). In King’s case, he is referring to the unjust law that oppresses African Americans that taints the rest of America’s laws in comparison to Socrates who argues that a law broken breaks all laws.
The major difference between Crito and “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” is the varying definitions of justice. In Crito, Socrates asserts that all laws must be follow, just and unjust, because one should never “do wrong” (Plato 52). In contrast, King believes that “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws,” therefore doing a wrong can make a “right” (King 3). In other words, by complying to the law, Socrates is maintaining justice. On the other hand, injustices were prevalent in America’s legal system in the 1960s, thus King must break unjust laws to restore true
To both King and Socrates, a portion of injustice in law damages justice as a whole. When Crito attempts to persuade Socrates …show more content…
King explains that a citizen has a “moral responsibility to obey just laws,” which parallels Socrates’s belief that an Athenian’s has a moral duty to the city’s law (King 3). Another similarity between Crito and “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” is the way the law and justice is seen as a united, interrelated entity. In Crito, harming one law means harming all the laws and King sees injustice similarly. By examining the laws that oppress African Americans, King concludes that “Injustice anywhere” is injustice “everywhere” (King 1). Both Socrates and King conclude that laws and injustice, respectively, are are interrelated, meaning “whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly” (King 1). In King’s case, he is referring to the unjust law that oppresses African Americans that taints the rest of America’s laws in comparison to Socrates who argues that a law broken breaks all laws.
The major difference between Crito and “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” is the varying definitions of justice. In Crito, Socrates asserts that all laws must be follow, just and unjust, because one should never “do wrong” (Plato 52). In contrast, King believes that “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws,” therefore doing a wrong can make a “right” (King 3). In other words, by complying to the law, Socrates is maintaining justice. On the other hand, injustices were prevalent in America’s legal system in the 1960s, thus King must break unjust laws to restore true