Philosohpy 313 Paper

Unjust vs. The Just

“Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statues are unjust because segregations distorts the soul and damages the personality” (King, p. 262). Through this statement, Martin Luther King Jr. defines what it means for a law to be unjust and the specifics of how segregation laws fall under this category of law making. In other words, if a written law is set out by a majority group of people to hinder or harm the spirits of a minority group of people and yet, have no affect on the majority, that law is unjust. How, by any means, is it just for a group of people to pass a law they have no intention of following, while directing it towards people who had no say in the law from the beginning? In order to understand, we must first realize that to define an unjust law, one must also define what exactly a just law is. A just law, as defined by King and St. Thomas Aquinas, must be rooted in “eternal and natural law” as well as “uplift human personality” (King, p. 262). It is with these definitions, we are able to answer the question: Is there an obligation to obey the law? In this paper I will argue that there is in fact an obligation to obey the law when the laws are just; however, not all laws are just, nor are all just laws applied correctly, leading to the dismantling of said obligation. In the effort to prove and support my thesis, I will reference readings such as, “Letter from Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King Jr., “Crito” by Plato as well as the evaluation of the much debated over Sandra Bland court case. Beginning with Martin Luther King Jr. we will see a prime example of someone who believes in and respects the law, but not when the laws do not respect him or those around him.

To fully understand Martin Luther King Jr.’s view on whether or not there is an obligation to obey the law, we have to look at the background of what prompted his “Letter from Birmingham Jail”. The most concise reason MLK Jr. had...