C. D. Phillips
Political Issues and Ideas
March 2013
Justice for MLK and Socrates
Justice involves the principal of fairness and equality. Justice also articulates that punishments should be proportionate to the action at hand. Martin Luther King Jr. and Socrates historically have similarities in how they guided their actions according to justice. Both have had opposing sides that too claim justice to their guidance such as segregationists, moderate Christians, Euthypro and Meletus. In King’s well-known “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” and “The Trial and Death of Socrates, The Apology”, there are similar themes in their approaches to justice as well as themes that touch upon issues such as power imbalance, the relationship between freedom and power, doing what is right ethically and justly and using freedom to do so even in a limited society. In these themes, both King and Socrates critique religion, society, and politics all for the betterment of the nation. Coincidently, their counterparts too believe they are just and are aiming for the nation’s overall improvement. However, it is the division amongst groups and creating the concept of otherness that the segregationists, moderate Christians, Meletus and Euthyphro use to justify their views which overall differs from King and Socrates approaches. Both of their responses to their injustices were based on non violent civil disobedience. Correspondingly, the idea of the “universal” is portrayed by both King and Socrates which promotes inclusivity which the antagonists in both situations are promoting exclusivity and separation. Creating an oppressor and an oppressed group doesn’t help build society it only obstructs it. That is the substantial difference in the two opposing approaches to justice. Both sides can argue they are just in their beliefs and actions but justice does not divide and hinder society’s potential and that is the significance. Justice emphasizes having a proportionate reaction to the action at hand. Euthypro’s desired punishment for Socrates was not proportionate to the alleged crime. Segregation based on race is already fundamentally wrong because race is not an option nor is there anything one can do to change their race. Segregating society based on race is not a proportionate response to the action at hand, which is simply existence.
Both Socrates and King challenged their societies to not only hear what they are saying but to essentially listen to their message. Though both were perceived as radical and extreme figures, their radical thoughts were necessary. They both were being wrongfully accused, and both reversed their accusations onto their accusers which distinguished between the true and false conception of justice. For example in “The Apology”, Socrates criticizes the Athenian society for their complacent behavior and assuming the politicians and others alike were automatically credible with society’s best interest at heart. He simultaneously questions those that claim to be obnoxiously wise that need not learn from others. He denies corrupting the youth and being an atheist and argues that his existence is necessary for Athens’s progression because he inspires and promotes critical thinking, self reflection and self evaluation. He too argues that his perception of the gods is not an atheist perspective but a necessary outlook. “Either I do not corrupt the young, or, if I do it is unwillingly, and you are lying in either case. Now if I corrupt them unwillingly, the law does not require you to bring people to the court for such wrongdoings…” (Plato, 26a) “Do I not believe, as in other men do, that the sun and the moon are gods? – No, by Zues, gentlemen of the jury, for he says that the sun is stone and the moon earth”. (Plato, 26d) In 33d-e, Socrates continues to say if Meletus’s accusations are is true, his colleagues, protégés and their respective families wouldn’t be present at the trial supporting him, rather, testifying against him. King states he is in Birmingham not only for the business affiliations and invitation he received, but he is also there because injustice is there. He refers to Socrates directly in the speech when he says “Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so we must see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.” (King, Letter) Like Socrates, King suggests that it is necessary to question the complacency in society to obtain genuine abstract knowledge and rise above an unjust status quo rather than accept complacency that restricts their individual and collective freedom.
In both situations King and Socrates try to convey universal concepts to define humanity and justice. Reason was fundamentally used by both of them to arrive to their philosophical concepts. The two understand freedom does not equate to power in either of their societies because exclusivity is used to justify inequality. Socrates conveys the universal concept as something that allows people to fully understand their experiences. Within reason, difference carries no valued distinction, and there isn’t a concept of “better than” and neutrality is a base. “Wealth does not bring about excellence, but excellence makes wealth and everything else good for men, both individually and collectively.”(Plato 30b) King faced a society where one community had more power based on inequality because of systemic denial. Socrates’ Athenian society too had imbalanced communities due to systemic denial. Ultimately, for Socrates his death was a way to force the society to liable for their actions in order for them to self reflect and self evaluate. “I was convicted because I lacked not words but boldness and shamelessness and the willingness to say to you what you would most gladly have heard from me…” (Plato, 38d) For King, it was his imprisonment that coerced society to reflect upon itself. “I submit that an individual who breaks the law, that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.” (King, Letter)
Meletus, Euythypro, the segregationists and moderate Christians opposed Socrates and King because their conservative perspective limited them. They inevitably feared change and feared losing their identity which is why they rejected King and Socrates. Change isn’t purely arbitrary. These accusers were incapable of accepting and considering these complex ideas of justice, universal humanity and community and simply continued to submit themselves to the status quo. They were blind to the opportunities that could have manifested from the changes King and Socrates spoke of. Negligence paired with limited perspectives cannot justly provide guidance for one’s actions. Euthyphro had a very limited “black and white” approach to society as opposed to Socrates which some might consider to be “gray”. Decisiveness is essential to justice because it requires one to see and acknowledge various possibilities. Euthyphro and Meletus are limited by thoughts because they need the god’s approval and therefore, they are inadequately conveying a false idea of justice. Though Eythrphro may like to believe he is adhering to justice, prosecuting his father suggest that his motivates are less clear than he would have liked society to believe. Euthyphro recognizes justice is essential. His contemporary idea of justice is based on knowing whether or not it obeys the laws of the gods. Conversely, for King, the Birmingham clergy and segregationist would praise the police for disciplining protestors and would attempt weak non binding negotiations that had little to no effect at all. “Justice delayed was justice denied.” (King, Letter)
Though King and Socrates’ societies existed in completely different times and places, the theme of justice is clearly the same. The idea of inclusion and equality has to be incorporated with justice as a priority in order for there to be a cohesive and fundamental development in society. There is no agency in obedience. Progress requires ideas of principles. That is what is absent from the opposition’s argument of justice. There aren’t any principles being offered in any of the concepts put forth by the segregationists, Euthyphro or Meletus. King and Socrates both offered a plethora of principles in their universal concepts and their defense against their accusers and the wrongs of their societies.
MizzRebelution 