Civil Disobedience in Socrates and Kings Opinion

Table of Contents

Introduction
Historical Background
Views on Civil Disobedience
Conclusions
Works Cited

Introduction

The history of humankind is filled with numerous examples of civil disobedience and revolts against the existing order of things. In the majority of these cases, these disobediences were fueled by severe disparities and injustices plaguing society. In many scenarios, the inability to find a peaceful solution and a compromise have led to violence, deaths, and even outright civil wars. The examples of violent scenarios are many the French Revolution, various communist uprisings around the world, and the American war for Independence that started as a series of peaceful and violent protests. The examples of peaceful protests successfully changing the course of history are much fewer. The most famous ones being Mahatma Gandhis peaceful revolution in India and Martin Luther Kings series of peaceful protests and acts of civil disobedience against black discrimination.

However, despite these successful examples, the majority of acts of civil disobedience remain on the edge of violence. The damage and casualties wrought during violent protests bring up the subject of the validity of civil disobedience as a whole. The society is divided on this notion, with some supporting a struggle for righteousness, whereas others stand for maintaining the status quo in order to avoid innocents being caught in the crossfire. The moral arguments for and against civil disobedience are illustrated by two important political and philosophical figures in human history Socrates and Martin Luther King Jr. While it may seem that Socrates and Martin Luther King Jr. have opposite views in regard to civil disobedience, the similarities in their overall views on justice, ethics, morality, and the State suggest that they may agree with one another on when peaceful civil disobedience is appropriate.

Historical Background

Martin Luther King Jr. and Socrates have many similarities in regard to their prison sentencing. Both men were accused of denigration and promotion of destructive ideas that threatened to undermine the existing Status Quo. In the case of Socrates, it was his promotion of atheistic views and questioning the existing traditions and norms, thus corrupting the minds of the youth (Plato et al. 73). Martin Luther King Jr. was accused of similar crimes, as evidenced by his iconic written work, titled Letter from Birmingham Jail, where he had addressed the accusations of fellow clergymen, which included the escalation of violence, the immorality of his cause, and the necessity to address the issues through legal means with the assistance of the existing justice system (King).

Both men were arrested and found guilty in these accusations. The difference in punishment, which, in Socrates case, was death, does not play a role in the context of this analysis, as in both cases, the punishment had been unjust. Martin Luther King Jr. confronted the society as well as the criminal justice system through initiating a wave of massive peaceful protests and acts of civil disobedience. Socrates, on the other hand, did not oppose his sentence in illegal ways and allowed himself to be executed. His death, though unjust, did not bring any major changes to the ancient Greek justice system, whereas actions of Martin Luther, though technically being against the existing law, have caused massive changes in American society, effectively ending institutionalized racism towards black people, and reformed the existing electoral, educational, and justice systems, which previously have been barred from the blacks.

Views on Civil Disobedience

At first glance, it would seem that the views of Socrates in regard to peaceful protest and civil disobedience substantially vary from those of Martin Luther King Jr. The basis for such a conclusion lies in comparing the words of Socrates from Apology and Crito with statements provided by Martin Luther in his Letter from Birmingham Jail.

In Crito, Socrates is visited by his friend, who offers him a chance to escape unjust punishment by smuggling him out of prison and sending him off into exile, where he would be able to continue to live for the rest of his life, without having to worry about anything, as his friends were willing to cover any expenses (Plato et al. 89). In his reply to Crito, Socrates proclaimed the sanctity of the Laws of Athens. According to Socrates, breaking the law in order to avoid an unjust punishment would break the social contract between him and Athens, as he had happily lived all of his life in Athens, thus validating the righteousness of their laws. Other than that, Socrates stated that breaking said laws by performing an act of civil disobedience would cause great harm and brand him as an outlaw. He would then suffer punishment in the afterlife for disrespecting the laws of his city (Plato et al. 93).

Martin Luther King Jr., on the other hand, validates civil disobedience on ethical and moral grounds, stating that a law that is unjust should be rightly opposed (King). According to his letter, just laws uphold human dignity, whereas unjust laws degrade human personality. In his actions, Martin Luther broke plenty of laws, some of which include the Parading without a permit law, which is, in itself, a perfectly decent law, but in combination with existing policies against black people was used as a tool of oppression. Martin Luther King Jr. was willing to suffer punishment for his transgressions, as he believed that his cause was righteous and just (King).

Based on the information presented above, the obvious conclusion would be that the views of Socrates are opposite to those of Martin Luther King Jr. The ancient philosopher defends the sanctity of law, whereas the American political leader claims that unjust laws could and should be broken in order to promote a righteous cause. However, a more detailed analysis indicates that the cases of Socrates and Martin Luther cannot be compared. Socrates was sentenced to death according to the letter of the law. The law itself was just. The judges, the jury, and the prosecutors, who were abusing the laws to promote their own personal agendas, were unjust. Thus, in Crito, Socrates did not face the issue of unjust laws, but the issue of corrupt judges, which is why he was against violating the law in order to escape punishment. In Martin Luthers case, he violated unjust laws in order to force a dialogue between sides. This goes in line with Socrates views on discovering the truth, notions of justice, and his theory of the State, which was further developed by Plato. In addition, Martin Luther and Socrates share views regarding the unacceptability of extremism as a political instrument. I believe that based on these conclusions, Socrates and Martin Luther King Jr. shared relatively similar views towards civil disobedience, which are as follows:

Wrong and unjust laws should be opposed.
Facilitating dialogue on both sides is the only proper means of change.
Extremism is to be avoided at all costs.

Conclusions

Despite the apparent differences in regard to civil disobedience and sanctity of the law, Socrates and Martin Luther King Jr. share many similarities in regard to justice, law, and affirmative action. It is possible that Socrates may have shared Martin Luthers ideas on civil disobedience, as the purpose of these disobediences, according to Letter from Birmingham Jail, was to force unwilling parties to negotiate in good faith.