Socrates Letter From Birmingham Jail Analysis

Since the Laws exist as one element, to break one would be to break every one of them, and in doing as such, Socrates would bring about them incredible damage. The citizen is bound to the Laws like a child is bound to a guardian, thus to conflict with the Laws would resemble striking a guardian. As opposed to just infringing upon the Laws and departure, Socrates ought to attempt to induce the Laws to release him. These Laws introduce the national's obligation to them as a sort of social contract. By living in Athens, a resident is bound by supporting the Laws, and complying with them. Socrates, more than most, ought to be as per this agreement, as he has carried on seventy years completely content with the Athenian lifestyle. If Socrates somehow managed to break from jail now, having so reliably approved the social contract, he would be making himself a bandit who might not be welcome in some other enlightened state for whatever is left of his life. Furthermore, when he bites the dust, he will be cruelly judged in the underworld for carrying on shamefully towards his city's laws. Subsequently, Socrates persuades Crito that it would be better not to endeavor a getaway. …show more content…
King does have some similarities with Socrates, and he does mention Socrates in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” One may ask: "How can you endorse breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. One has a lawful as well as a moral obligation to obey just laws. Then again, one also has a moral obligation to go against unjust laws. A just law is a man-made code that squares with the ethical law. An unjust law is a code that is out of order with the ethical law. “Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally