Disobedience of Unjust Laws or Commands – The Moral Justification
Parker J. Harrison
Word Count : 633
Civil disobedience is often faced with moral backlash in a political nature. Even in a
proper governed society, citizens may experience a situation in which their morals are evaluated
when split between obedience or disobedience of a command given by their government. The
application of laws by corrupted political figures can be unjust despite the law itself being
justified in nature. Civil disobedience is morally justified when a just law is enforced in a way
that opposes the very liberty the law is in place to defend. This civil disobedience shall not
undermine the law’s authority but attempt to regain the original purpose and power of the law.
Both Socrates and Martin Luther King Jr. believe in the just application of laws but have
contracting stances on the moral justification of resistance towards the law. Martin Luther King
Jr. holds a stronger stance as constant misinterpretation and use of a law leads to injustice in the
system.
In ‘Plato, Apology’, Socrates affirms his beliefs that to disobey the law would be the most
harmful to his soul as opposed to actual punishment. This comes from Socrates belief that the
law comes from the Polis which gives law its authority and is what creates a citizen’s moral
obligation to obey law. Socrates states, “"Gentlemen of the jury, I am grateful and I am your
friend, but I will obey the god rather than you, and as long as I draw breath and am able, I shall
not stop practicing philosophy or exhorting you, pointing out the truth to any of you I happen to
meet and saying in my usual way” (29d). Socrates, refusing the abandonment of his teaching of
philosophy does not mean he is refusing the law as he later accepts the verdict decided in his trial
and ends himself.
Martin Luther King Jr. shares his viewpoints with Socrates on the basis of their shared
respect for the authority of the law, but King focusses on moral injustice through unjust
enforcement of laws. In Martin Luther King Jr., ‘Letter from the Birmingham Jail’, King
discusses the clear difference between a law that is inherently created justly but through
discriminatory application of said law, becomes unjust in nature. Seen most present is when King
discusses his experience of an unjust application of a just law stating, “I was arrested on a charge
of parading without a permit. Now there is nothing wrong with an ordinance which requires a
permit for a parade, but when this ordinance is used to preserve segregation and to deny citizens
the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and peaceful protest, then it becomes
unjust” (King 5). King elaborates his view with the stance that remaining obedient to an unjust
application of a law creates more injustice.
Socrates and Martin Luther King Jr. both acknowledge that the law is required to uphold
justice in society as well as refuse the use of violence. These two philosophers disagree on when
obedience under unjust application of law is required. Socrates believes in obeying legal
authority despite facing injustice. King believes that such obedience is morally unjust. Martin
Luther King holds the stronger belief as obedience towards unjust application of laws only leads
to injustice in society. Law was created to uphold the good of society and corrupt application
only leads to the degradation of society. Nonviolent civil disobedience maintains a level of
respect for the law and protects laws from moral injustice. Although civil disobedience may lead
to unrest between citizens creating a lack of authority upheld by law, this objection is weak as it
does not account for the barriers created by civil disobedience. Nonviolent protesting, paired
with acceptance of punishment, strengthens the authority upheld by law. Civil disobedience is
needed to prevent the presence of unjust application of law.