Martin Luther King believed that freedom and equality is a man's birthright. This is a civil right that should be shared to all persons, not just one group of people. King states that “Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority”. Segregation belittles a group of people thus telling that group that they are not equal, therefore inferior. This is an unjust law that is kept in order to maintain peace and discourage discontent. When one is denied basic civil rights, even though it is stated in the first amendment in the Bill of Rights, it dehumanizes that person. Once a law is unjust,
…show more content…
Similar to Plato, King protested segregation even though it was looked down upon to speak against the law and audacious to speak against segregation. King explained why these laws are illogical by comparing the legality of the laws to the legality of the holocaust. Even though the holocaust was legal at the time, legality did not make the actions moral. King did it because it oppressed a group of people and stripped their natural rights. Both King and Plato understood the consequences of their actions and were punished, however, did not plead guilty, instead justified their actions through logic. King justified his actions of passive resistance in order to bring justice and raise awareness about the critical call for the end of segregation and work towards equality amongst his people. Plato justified his actions of ‘corrupting the youth’ by explaining how the laws that everyone follows do not make sense and are only put there because they were made by people who did not use rational reasoning behind their laws and instead accepted that “the law is the law”.
Descartes said that “I think therefore I am”. Once an individual acknowledges their existence, they are not any more or less human than another individual. This is something that everyone shares, therefore, should be given the same rights and equality. Descartes also said to doubt everything, including laws. While doubting the law is known to be bold and unheard of, King does …show more content…
King repeats their view. How could their claim be justified?
The ministers of Birmingham opposed Kings conclusions because they wish to stick with the status quo and maintain order rather than justice. During that time, having an African American given equal rights and sharing common grounds with the white people is unspeakable and audacious. This would most likely spark riots and chaos amongst the people. In some cases, the order may be favored over justice because without order, chaos may bring war, death, violence and economic downfalls. Another point made by the ministers is that the blacks were a group of minorities. The greater good for the greatest amount of people is more important that for a smaller amount of people. In order to preserve that current peace and avoid chaos, the ministers suggest the African Americans endure it.The ministers also call the civil rights movement “untimely”. Perhaps the ministers wanted to wait until a time when the African Americans were more accepted into
Similar to Plato, King protested segregation even though it was looked down upon to speak against the law and audacious to speak against segregation. King explained why these laws are illogical by comparing the legality of the laws to the legality of the holocaust. Even though the holocaust was legal at the time, legality did not make the actions moral. King did it because it oppressed a group of people and stripped their natural rights. Both King and Plato understood the consequences of their actions and were punished, however, did not plead guilty, instead justified their actions through logic. King justified his actions of passive resistance in order to bring justice and raise awareness about the critical call for the end of segregation and work towards equality amongst his people. Plato justified his actions of ‘corrupting the youth’ by explaining how the laws that everyone follows do not make sense and are only put there because they were made by people who did not use rational reasoning behind their laws and instead accepted that “the law is the law”.
Descartes said that “I think therefore I am”. Once an individual acknowledges their existence, they are not any more or less human than another individual. This is something that everyone shares, therefore, should be given the same rights and equality. Descartes also said to doubt everything, including laws. While doubting the law is known to be bold and unheard of, King does …show more content…
King repeats their view. How could their claim be justified?
The ministers of Birmingham opposed Kings conclusions because they wish to stick with the status quo and maintain order rather than justice. During that time, having an African American given equal rights and sharing common grounds with the white people is unspeakable and audacious. This would most likely spark riots and chaos amongst the people. In some cases, the order may be favored over justice because without order, chaos may bring war, death, violence and economic downfalls. Another point made by the ministers is that the blacks were a group of minorities. The greater good for the greatest amount of people is more important that for a smaller amount of people. In order to preserve that current peace and avoid chaos, the ministers suggest the African Americans endure it.The ministers also call the civil rights movement “untimely”. Perhaps the ministers wanted to wait until a time when the African Americans were more accepted into