Martin Luther King Jr And Socrates Comparison Essay

Martin Luther King often seeks inspiration from the Bible as well as from notorious philosophers of the Ancient Greeks such as Socrates, Plato and Odysseus. MLK was mostly inspired by how they guided their actions, making them harmonic with its justice. He will employ similar themes that pertain to lack of power and its relationship with freedom and justice: doing what is right ethically. It is very astonishing to observe how Antigone and Letter from Birmingham Jail are akin, despite being written at two different decades. In both cases, they fight for the good of society.

While Socrates and King were in jail for the same action, which was expressing their beliefs, they came to opposite conclusions about civil disobedience and the relationship between an individual and their society. The Athenian government charged Socrates with impiety and corrupting the youth. He was sentenced

They also believed that they were born free to explore themselves and society. While these characters were relatively similar in numerous ways, they also differ in many ways. King was part of a group and a movement through his decade, gathering help from others such as; Rosa Parks and Malcolm X. (Biography.com) He was a social reformer pursuing his Jacob Zasada Mr. Moorehouse 6th period career and gathering all the help he could get.

Several philosophers have wrestled with ideas to decide under what conditions that humans are morally permitted to disobey the law. Civil disobedience is a concept that both Socrates and Martin Luther King Jr. strongly believed in, but they did not have the same viewpoints on it. Socrates dismissed any form of civil disobedience that got a person into conflict with the State, and Martin Luther King concluded that there were times when a man needed to partake in a protest that was non violent and take disobedient acts in in order to defend his freedom. Socrates believed that if a person lives in a government where he was given the chance to argue his case, he should not practice civil disobedience. Socrates thought that if a person was given

The first concept that I noticed shared by Russell and Socrates was the concept that one had to remove themselves before serious philosophical contemplation could take place. In Russell 's case, he refers to the "Self" and the "Not-Self". With Socrates, as seen in the Apology, confronting his accuser about the corruption of youth, his accuser is silent because he had not given the matter any thought. Socrates awareness of his own ignorance frees him from what Russell would refer to as "Self". I mention this because it serves as a common theme even as both philosophers differ in their messages.

By breaking the law his soul would be ruined and a ruined soul is not worth living with. This goes back to when he said that the really important thing is not to live but to live well. Also, when he dies he would enter Hades as an outlaw and will not be well welcomed. Therefore, he believes that he should stay and face his execution because it is better to die than to live with a ruined soul. Socrates uses all of these points to support his main argument which is that escaping jail would be morally incorrect.

Throughout time, people have been yearning to live in a society where all is morally correct. Every individual may have a different set of morals or varying definitions of what exactly is just and what is unjust, but almost all are willing to fight for what is right. As a matter of fact, it is the responsibility of the people to fight against injustices and search for order in a society led by rulers who impose unjust laws. However, Sophocles’ Antigone and Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter from Birmingham Jail both show how there are costs in this fight for moral preservation. These costs come in the form of civil disobedience and taking a stand among a conforming society, while also risking one’s self and possibly suffering in the process.

Socrates states that if one does not agree with the contract that you tacitly agreed to that one must either try and persuade the state to change or follow the rules that they have. Socrates tried to sway the court on his ruling and failed, he now feels obligated to follow through with the ruling and accept the punishment that he was given. He also realizes that if he did not like the rules and regulations of Athens that he had the choice to leave and reside in another city. Socrates knows that since he has lived in Athens for many years and benefited from the goods and services of Athens he feels obligated to give Athens his

Socrates bases this view of justice on the worth of living a good life. “And is life worth living for us with that part of us corrupted by unjust actions” (47e) If we corrupt our soul with injustice, our life would not be worth living, therefore one must never commit an injustice. “When one has come to an agreement that is just with someone, one should fulfill it.”(49e) It is this agreement with the Laws that Socrates would be violating, if he were to

He uses the example of ruling a city, where a government would change the rules and laws to best suit them, and as the rules are followed by those who act justly, the just would be acting in the favour of the stronger. Socrates objects to this and claims that humans will make mistake, as that is part of being human, and may

Socrates started his life as an average Athen citizen. His parents worked, making an honest living. But as Socrates grew up, he began to realize that his mind questioned things and wondered how come no one else questioned the same things or at least think about the answers to the questions that were not answered. So, as his mind kept wandering, he began to acknowledge the questions that were not answered and sought for those answers. He ended up believing and teaching things to other people, whether it went against the way the Athen government or not, he still continued his work.

Socrates seems more concerned with showing that he has lived justly than to show that he has not broken any laws. It can be interpreted that he is willing to go against a law in order to do what he believes to be just because something that is morally right can sometimes justify breaking

Philosophical thinking uses three acts of the mind: understanding, judgement, and reason. In order to have a sound argument all of the concepts must be applied. Socrates didn’t want to please the people by saying or doing what they wanted him to say or do. Socrates thought it was not important to seek wealth or fame; he was concerned with truth and virtue. He wanted to create an impact on humanity by relying on the truth and shining a light in people’s lives, even if they put him on trial.

He also proclaims that “… academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. King explains the difference between unjust and just laws by telling of the moral affect each one has, the way the white majority used unjust laws to their advantage, and why King thought it was our civil duty to break unjust laws. What unjust laws will your conscience tell you to civilly disobey

Socrates discusses old age with Cephalus, and this eventually leads to the first core topic of “Republic”. What justice is. Just like in Plato’s earlier works, a Socratic dialogue is introduced and Socrates proceeds to ask these questions to the group of friends he was conversing with. He ultimately refuses every suggestion his friends offered due to the fact that each suggestion had some sort of contradiction. For example, when Cephalus gave his definition for what justice is, which was that justice essentially means living up to your legal obligations and being honest, Socrates defeats this definition by pointing out that if this is the true definition of justice, then if for some reason one was holding the weapon of a madman, that it would be unjust to not give the madman his weapon, even if it puts people around him at risk, which of course wouldn’t be the case.