Relation between King’s Ethical Argument and Socrates’ Dialogue
In 1963, King brought to Birmingham, his non-violent resistance campaign to segregation (King 256). At that time, Birmingham was among the places in the South with the highest rate of segregation. It had earned the gross label ‘Bombingham’ after a long time of unsolved attacks on churches and homes belonging to African Americans. After King’s arrest for violating a decree which forbids demonstrations, he decided to respond to the white clergy of Birmingham. Given his audience and message, King regularly sought encouragement from Biblical resources, philosophers as well as theologian Christians such as Aquinas, Jewish, Augustine, and Niehbur. In three instances in the Birmingham letter. King invokes Socrates for his brand of activist philosophy along with his just practice regarding civil disobedience.
Euthyphro differs from King’s view in that Socrates justifies his perception using division among groups and establishing the aspect of otherness, as opposed to the approaches provided by King. King’s response to his injustice was founded on nonviolent public disobedience. Correspondingly, King portrays the perspective on the universal, which encourages inclusivity which King, in his situation, is promoting separation and exclusivity (King 261). The creation of groups of the oppressor and the oppressed is not in any way helpful in building the society, but it obstructs it. The latter brings up the significant differences between King’s opinions in the Letter from Birmingham jail and Socrates’ views in Euthyphro in relation to justice. Although both can argue about justice in their approaches and belies, justice does not create divisions and hinder the potential of society, which is the significance. As such, justice emphasizes on having a proportionate response to the imminent action. Euthyphro’s preferred punishment was not equivalent to the alleged offence (Grube and John 5). Segregation founded on race is typically fundamentally wrong since race seizes to be an option and there is nothing an individual can do in a bid to alter their race. Therefore, racial segregation of society on the basis of race fails to be a proportionate reaction to the imminent action, which is essentially existent.
The Euthyphro dilemma is opposed to King’s argument due to his conservative view, which limits him (Grube and John 5). It is possible that the Euthyphro’s argument depicts fear of change as well as the loss of identity, which is in contrast with King’s representation. Change is not entirely arbitrary. It presented the incapability to accept and consider the complicated ideas which relate to justice, community and universal humanity and simply proceeded to submit the prevailing status quo. Euthyphro’s dilemma was an illustration of being blind to opportunities which could have exhibited from the changes that King talked about. Negligence, coupled with limited opinions, cannot justly offer guidance for an individual’s actions. Euthyphro’s argument had quite a limited approach to society in terms of ‘black and white’ as opposed to King’s views. Further on, decisiveness is imperative for justice since it needs to see as well as acknowledge a number of possibilities. The dialogue presented a different idea of justice from King in that there was emphasis on the need for approval from God. It acknowledges the importance and demands for justice with the modern-day idea of justice based on the knowledge of whether it conformed to the laws of gods (Quill 14). Conversely, in the case of King, segregationist and the clergy would appraise the police for punishing protestors and would try weak non-binding negotiations which had minimal effect. As such, delayed justice is a denied justice.
Works Cited
Grube, G. M. A., and John M. Cooper. Five Dialogues: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, Phaedo. Hackett Publishing, 1981.
King, Martin Luther, and C. T. Vivian. “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” Arguing about law (2013): 254-264.
Quill, Lawrence. Civil disobedience:(un) common sense in mass democracies. Springer, 2009