Sociology

When is lawbreaking considered just In a world defined and given form by laws and rules, this question is a universal and pervasive one. I daresay that everyone has asked this question of himself, perhaps maybe upon encountering an instance where to uphold one law he must break another, or when abiding by the law makes him feel uneasy and uncomfortable, or simply out of a moment of pondering. This paper shall try to answer the same question, using Platos Apologia and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.s Letter from a Birmingham Jail as references.

For Socrates, deemed wisest by the Oracle of Delphi among the ancient Greeks, in Platos Apology, the answer was simple breaking the law was justified whenever the pursuit of it appealed to higher ends. Of these higher ends, two are identified from Socrates discourse the first being truth, and the second being the gods. The former was implicitly identified when Socrates announces that the charges and slander against him have been brought about by his pursuit of the truth behind the pronunciation of the Oracle of Delphi. The latter, on the other hand, was expressed by Socrates when he stated that, in the circumstance of a clash between a lawful human superior and a lawful divine superior, the latter should be followed even at the expense of the former Gentlemen, I am your grateful and devoted servant, but I owe a greater obedience to God than to you and as long as I draw breath and have my faculties I shall never stop practicing philosophy. In thus saying, Socrates lays a fundamental distinction between human law and divine law, with divine law being by nature superior to its human counterpart.

This distinction also underscores Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.s justification of lawbreaking in his A Letter from a Birmingham Jail. In this correspondence, Dr. King identifies the distinction between a just law and an unjust law, with just laws being man-made laws that are in alignment with the divine and moral law, and unjust laws being laws that are not in harmony with the same. For Dr. King, segregation laws were unjust laws because of their inherent traits first, they were formulated by whites when their implementation would greatly affect colored people, thereby denying colored people of their part in the policy-formulation process and undermining democracy second, segregation laws were meant to put colored people at a disadvantage, thereby robbing them of the exercise of their basic rights. A refusal to obey segregation laws, then, was a just act, while compliance to them constituted the perpetration of injustice. It is crucial to note, though, that while Dr. Kings main topic was the issue of segregation, this was not the reason why he was put in jail rather, he was put in jail for having led and participated in a demonstration in Birmingham against segregation. To this end, Dr. King further elucidates on when it is justifiable to break the law he states that, as an individual opposed to segregation, he and his company have tried every legal means in order to make themselves heard, all to no avail. Thus, another reason that Dr. King gives as a feasible justification for breaking the law is when, in the pursuit of ones rights (in his case the rights to expression and equal treatment) all other legal means have been exhausted.

A review of the discourses of Socrates and Dr. King emphasize a crucial point in understanding the justifiability of breaking the law for the two, it is justifiable to break the law when a greater good is at stake, as in an adherence to divine will in the case of Socrates, and freedom and equality in the case of Dr. King.