Martin Luther King Just And Unjust

1213 Words5 Pages
In his efforts to respond to the Birmingham Clergymen, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. points out the differences between just and unjust laws while responding to the question “Why direct action?” (King, p.2). By examining his letter and evaluating my own thoughts I have come to both an agreement and disagreement with Dr. King. Though I concede that there is truly a difference between just and unjust laws, I still insist that taking direct action was not the most appropriate way for Dr. King to approach his situation. Nevertheless, both followers and critics of Dr. King will probably suggest otherwise and argue that direct action was the only way for the activists to get their points across and get what they thought they deserved. Although there…show more content…
King on his view of the differences between just and unjust laws. A law can be categorized as both just and unjust. For example, if there is a law that is logical and right then it is just but if it is used against certain people then it then becomes unjust as well. Dr. King states, “One not only has a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” (King, p.3). If a law does not fit the moral code then what makes it legal? Some may say that everyone should obey and follow all laws no matter what. But if a law is morally wrong and wrongly affects you, would you still want to obey that law? I would define a just law as a law that can help the people of the community do right and stay out of trouble, a law that is for the people. I would define an unjust law as a law that is against the “other” people for the benefit or enjoyment of the people who has created them, a law that can degrade the character of certain individuals. All segregation statues are unjust, just as Dr. King informed the clergymen of, they are laws that are used against minorities. In his letter, Dr. King gives the example of the actions of Adolf Hitler being morally wrong but legal while the actions of the Hungarian freedom fighters being morally right but at the same time illegal; this example represents just and unjust laws. Therefore, Dr. King is absolutely right when he informs the clergymen of the differences…show more content…
Dr. King states that direct action “creates a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.” (King, p.2). Yet Dr. King contradicts himself by making that statement. Earlier in his letter while stating the four steps in any non-violent campaign, Dr. King puts negotiation before direct action. So, direct action cannot be seen as a door to negotiation if there is supposed to be a type of negotiation happening before any direct action takes place. Some may agree that direct action is a good approach to bring attention to a situation and they are correct, but it is not the best approach and it may not attract the right attention. Direct action dramatizes issues but not all drama is beneficial to a situation. Using direct action could attract unwanted, negative attention. It can cause negative tension in a community and gain the attention of the authorities. This interpretation challenges the thoughts of those activists who have long assumed that direct action was the best way to address a situation. With a community taking direct action, whether it is non-violent or not, it can still result in violence. Authorities may feel as though by the community taking direct action that they are out of control and take this approach as a threat. If the authorities are not understanding the reason for this direct action, they will engage
Open Document