Socrates, one of the most prestigious philosophers in history, argues in Crito, “Nor must one, when wronged, inflict wrong in return, as the majority believe, since one must never do wrong” (Plato, 52). That is, he believes that a person should never do harm or wrong to others. Even if that person was harmed or wronged first, he or she should never do wrong in revenge. Therefore, under this premise, Socrates concludes that he should not escape the prison because this action will wrong the law, though he is actually betrayed by the law first. However, the terms “never” and “must” make the assumption too absolute because, sometimes, committing wrongdoing in return is indeed necessary and justified, especially when targeting social injustice.
…show more content…
Imagine if the Jim Crow laws were still in place in the United States: African American kids would be studying inferior materials with less competent resources, compared to their white peers; African Americans in general would be paid less or working in a much inferior environment, even if they had the same skill set as their white co-workers; substantial amount of black people would have to live in a much poorer neighborhood. These laws, in essence, were destruction on the humanity and denial of the basic human rights. They were both morally and socially unjust. Therefore, upholding them instead of changing them would only extend such evil and injustice. As Martin Luther King Jr, the famous activist who protested against the racial segregation, explains in his Letter From Birmingham Jail, ignoring such unjust laws only promoted this social stagnation, which was an “obnoxious negative peace, where the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight” (King, …show more content…
For example, negotiation would be a great way to start. Yet, First and foremost, negotiation might also be considered as a wrongdoing because the goal of such negotiation was either reforming the laws or totally changing it. Either way, the Jim Crow laws would have to be tempered or altered due to the fact that they were considered illegitimate. As such, negotiation would be perceived as wrongdoing by the laws or the authority, which built up and upheld the laws. It is a matter of perspective in terms of considering whether negotiation was wrongdoing or not. Secondly, negotiation would not likely to happen because the authority constantly refused to negotiate, despite a strong demand from African Americans and civil rights activists. Only civil disobedience could lead the way to negotiation. As King clearly explains the connection between negotiation and the so called “wrongdoings” in his Letter From Birmingham Jail, “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue” (King, 86). In other words, only through breaking the laws and showing how unfair they were could the laws be questioned. As such, the opportunities for negotiation could eventually
Imagine if the Jim Crow laws were still in place in the United States: African American kids would be studying inferior materials with less competent resources, compared to their white peers; African Americans in general would be paid less or working in a much inferior environment, even if they had the same skill set as their white co-workers; substantial amount of black people would have to live in a much poorer neighborhood. These laws, in essence, were destruction on the humanity and denial of the basic human rights. They were both morally and socially unjust. Therefore, upholding them instead of changing them would only extend such evil and injustice. As Martin Luther King Jr, the famous activist who protested against the racial segregation, explains in his Letter From Birmingham Jail, ignoring such unjust laws only promoted this social stagnation, which was an “obnoxious negative peace, where the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight” (King, …show more content…
For example, negotiation would be a great way to start. Yet, First and foremost, negotiation might also be considered as a wrongdoing because the goal of such negotiation was either reforming the laws or totally changing it. Either way, the Jim Crow laws would have to be tempered or altered due to the fact that they were considered illegitimate. As such, negotiation would be perceived as wrongdoing by the laws or the authority, which built up and upheld the laws. It is a matter of perspective in terms of considering whether negotiation was wrongdoing or not. Secondly, negotiation would not likely to happen because the authority constantly refused to negotiate, despite a strong demand from African Americans and civil rights activists. Only civil disobedience could lead the way to negotiation. As King clearly explains the connection between negotiation and the so called “wrongdoings” in his Letter From Birmingham Jail, “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue” (King, 86). In other words, only through breaking the laws and showing how unfair they were could the laws be questioned. As such, the opportunities for negotiation could eventually