Georgia Governor Brian Kemp called King a «transformative leader» and a «true American hero» who recognized «a great injustice in this world» and «took the necessary steps to correct that injustice.» Yet Kemp was sitting under a painting of a slave plantation when he signed a voter suppression bill that criminalized giving food and water to people who lined up to vote. The number of auxiliaries of the Moral Law in the letter is the alternative candidate. It fills (2). If a law is unjust or exploitative, as evidenced by segregation laws, it is an immoral law and therefore unjust. However, it does not fill (1). It does not mention any theological elements, so it may not be sufficient for the theological moral view. It is also impossible to comprehensively cover abstract morality in two simple tools. The amount of tools is not sufficient for a moral law in both interpretations. This cannot be enough for a just law. An important caveat is that King did not intend to develop a rigorous theory of just laws in Letter. Therefore, the report we have derived (with the moral criterion as the central element of just laws and two complementary tools) should be called a king-inspired report and not a king-backed report. We will now assess whether this king-inspired report is a good conceptual tool for distinguishing between just and unjust laws. Otherwise, we will check if a change is possible to improve the account.
And, of course, he sat in a prison cell in Birmingham and talked about how Alabama`s segregation laws, which prevented black citizens from voting, were introduced by an undemocratically elected state legislature (a majority of power). He pointed out that even in some predominantly black districts, not a single black person was registered to vote. To make II a reality and generate a potentially good conceptual tool, we must abandon King`s theological understanding of morality. We need to find an appropriate secular definition. However, this is not an easy task. The debate on the meaning of morality is no less strong than the debate on the meaning of justice. Philosophers cannot agree on the nature, source, or content of morality. A more extreme school, moral nihilism, rejects even the objective existence of morality (Mackie 1990). The current general revulsion against racism means that categorizing segregation laws as immoral is acceptable in most moral schools, but harmony disappears when we evaluate more controversial laws such as abortion laws. Therefore, to have an inclusive and undisputed interpretation of morality, we must adopt an abstract version. We must call correct morality in a very general sense.
If you take this idea of morality, King`s account can be instrumentally valid. «A just law is a man-made code that conforms to the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that does not conform to the moral law,» King replied. «You have not only a legal but also a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility not to obey unjust laws. And he concluded this point by invoking St. Augustine`s teaching that «an unjust law is not a law at all.» Local pastors denounced the protest as «reckless and outdated,» including: (1) It was not King`s Battle as he was not based in Birmingham; (2) Negotiations, not protests, are a better approach; (3) The king delegitimized his message by breaking the law by walking, regardless of the purity of his motives; and (4) King`s methods were suspicious because they triggered violence. King`s responses to these accusations — starting at the edge of his copy of the newspaper and continuing on shreds of writing paper — are models of clarity and prudent judgment.
The process of assessing a particular law as fair can be summarized as follows. What is an unjust law? According to King, he is the one who humiliates rather than elevates humanity. The Jim Crow segregation laws were a prime example of unjust laws because «segregation distorts the soul and harms the personality,» as King noted. «This gives the segregater a false sense of superiority and segregation a false sense of inferiority.» King`s response to the third accusation, that the moral legitimacy of his cause was undermined because he broke the law to achieve his goal, is deeply rooted in the Christian theological and philosophical tradition he knew so well. He recognized the gravity of the decision to break the law, even for just cause, and agreed that civil disobedience should be exercised with caution and regret. But to defend his actions, King invoked St. Thomas Aquinas to distinguish just laws from unjust laws. The letter is an example of the enduring breadth of King`s legacy, demonstrating his commitment to nonviolence, his thirst for justice, and his commitment to the truth of the solidarity of all humanity. These are noble aspirations for all, and the letter asks us to consider the seriousness of our legal and political life together, regardless of political affiliation, religious commitment or any demographic characteristic. However, this is not a sensible practice. Universal coverage and universal suffrage are more necessary than sufficient conditions for both aid organisations. In other words, they are not a complete embodiment of excipients.
They simply exclude certain unfair and exploitative characteristics. If a law applies to everyone, it may not be fair. For example, the policy of free higher education for all meets the requirement of universal coverage, but is not necessarily an equitable policy (O`Malley 2015; Baum und Turner 2019). Children from wealthier families are more likely to be admitted to university. As a result, they enjoy a greater share of the political benefits than their poorer counterparts. Even if a law is passed democratically, it must not be exploited. People`s choices can be shaped by exploitation in the form of coercion, deprivation of education, or even brainwashing. When the house elves in Harry Potter were lucky enough to be paid and free, they expressed great disgust and reluctance.
They sincerely believed that they were born as servants of men. They would like to be «willing slaves.» I`m not just talking about novels. Abusive social culture can influence the self-assessment of the exploited and their children. Women living in a male-dominated society and Dalits at the bottom of the Hindu caste system are both victims of real life. In summary, if we choose to concretize the auxiliaries by integrating these additional specifications into the account, we will further limit the applicability of the account. It will only be useful to identify a small group of unjust and abusive laws in the specific form of failure to achieve universal coverage or universal suffrage. Many other unjust and exploitative laws will not be exposed. «Well, what`s the difference between the two? How do you determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that conforms to the moral law or the law of God.