Introduction
The Black Lives Matter Movement has ignited an array of protests around the United States of America and within the global community. People went into the streets to demand equal rights for all; the tool for delivering their agenda was through demonstrations and protests, which are commonly characterized by acts of civil disobedience. Recent protests were characteristic of activists’ blocking the roads, bridges, commerce, as well as frequent arrests for nonviolent acts of disobedience (“Black Lives Matter Demonstrations”). Such encounters between citizens and the law reflect the attempts of the civilians to demand social and legislative change through displays of non-compliance with the law. This paper will examine the differences in the opinions about civil disobedience as presented by Socrates and Martin Luther King. Their arguments will be applied to the issues of Black Lives Matter to infer their expected opinions on the protestors’ actions.
Socrates’ Argument
Socrates, as a Greek philosopher of ancient times, is an influential historical figure. His accounts on the issues related to the law have laid a foundation for rhetorics throughout the years and remain relevant when judging a moral or legislative dilemma even today. Socrates believed that citizens should always obey the law and respect it regardless of the impact of the law on an individual person. In the philosopher’s opinion, the ultimate goal of the law is to preserve the interests of the state (Panagiotou 93-94). That is why even if immoral or unjust to an individual human being; the law should be obeyed for the sake of the common good of the majority (Panagiotou 93-94). In other words, Socrates was an advocate of civil obedience due to his concern with the law being an ultimate priority for governing people.
When applied to the case of the Black Lives Matter movement, Socrates might have claimed that the protesters were engaged in wrongdoing since they disrespected the law with their actions. In particular, his argument to the Black Lives Matter activists might be the one stating that civil obedience is ultimate and obligatory. It is immoral to break the law in an attempt to redeem injustice (Panagiotou 94-95). In such a manner, Socrates would have advocated for the peaceful pursuit of legal change instead of breaking the rules, blocking the roads and bridges, disrupting business functioning, or causing other problems against the law. However, such an opinion is not the only possible; Socrates’ argument might be confronted by an opposing view held by an activist of the Civil Rights movement.
Martin Luther King’s Response to Socrates’ Argument
Martin Luther King, on the other hand, would have a different opinion on the event the recent years around the Black Lives Matter movement. In his view, civil disobedience is a driver of law-making that reflects the urgent issues in society. King’s account of political philosophy was reflected in his work under the title “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” in which he postulated the principles of distribution of political power (Livingston 700). In particular, this document is “a powerful expression of the idea that civil disobedience, properly understood, can strengthen the rule of law rather than undermine it” (Livingston 700). Thus, Martin Luther King’s opinion, as manifested by his individual example in the Civil Rights movement, promotes disobedience. It is based on the idea that continuous obedience to unjust laws provokes corruption of power and leads to growing inequalities in political and social realms.
Following the arguments for civil disobedience presented on account of Martin Luther King, his response to Socrates’ arguments would have been an opposing one. It might be relevant to respond using the question asked by Livingston, namely, “will nonviolence survive the white refusal to take responsibility for injustice?” (713). Indeed, King would have supported the activists of the Black Lives Matter movement in their actions in breaking the law. Socrates’ opinion on the promotion of obedience due to the law’s ultimate power would be ineffective from Martin Luther King’s point of view. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to law from a moral perspective. According to Kendall, the law is a moral idea because it serves as a stepping stone to a society’s functioning (75). In particular, the scholar explains that “the preconditions for legitimacy include functioning institutions to aggregate, align, codify, and actualize the interests of citizens of equal worth and participatory capacity and opportunity” (75-76). Given this remark on morality and law, the differences between the arguments of Socrates and Martin Luther King are evident. The former viewed law as a moral universal, hence obedience; the latter doubted the morality of law if it is unjust, hence disobedience.
Black Lives Matter Activist’s Opinion
The discussion of the arguments of both Socrates and King provides clarity on the differences between their opinions on civil disobedience. However, it is relevant to apply these arguments to the Black Lives Matter movement participants to integrate the abovementioned political and philosophical claims into the agenda of protestors. Thus, an activist participating in the Black Lives Matter movement and being accused of disobedience would have different attitudes toward the arguments presented by Socrates and Martin Luther King. In particular, a protestor would accept Martin Luther King’s opinion due to its prioritization of respect for the individual rights of every single citizen regardless of the overall interest of the law in pursuing the state’s agenda. Indeed, since law and state might be corrupted and indifferent to the concerns of minority groups, their needs might never be met.
Activists who participate in demonstrations present their motivation for engagement in law-breaking by appealing to the ineffectiveness of alternative methods of influence. In particular, the activists state, “it’s like what else can we do? We sign these petitions, we do all of this, and it’s still the same” (“Black Lives Matter Demonstrations” para. 11). In other words, people refer to disobedience as the only effective measure that might lead to change because it attracts attention and demonstrates dissatisfaction with the injustices in current laws. Such assertions are compatible with Martin Luther King’s argument, which is why his philosophical reasoning of civil disobedience complies with the validation of the Black Lives Matter movement events and arrests.
Conclusion
In summation, the comparison of Martin Luther King’s and Socrates’ accounts of civil disobedience has demonstrated a contrast in the two thinkers’ opinions. Socrates was an advocate for civil obedience, while Martin Luther King promoted civil disobedience as a way of resisting unjust laws. In the context of the Black Lives Matter movement, King’s argument would have been most compelling due to its validation of law-breaking as the only effective tool of protesting.
Works Cited
“Black Lives Matter Demonstrations Stop Traffic on George Washington Bridge Before Protesters Clash with Police in Washington Heights.” CBS New York, 2020, Web.
Kendall, Walter. “Martin Luther King, Jr., Civil Disobedience and the Duty to Obey the Law: Where Do We Go From Here?.” The Journal of Social Encounters, vol. 3, no. 1, 2019, pp. 75-87.
Livingston, Alexander. “Power for the Powerless: Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Late Theory of Civil Disobedience.” The Journal of Politics, vol. 82, no. 2, 2020, pp. 700-713.
Panagiotou, Spiro. “Socrates and Civil Disobedience.” Socratic Questions. Routledge, 2018. Pp. 93-121.