Home > Sample essays > Socrates vs. Martin Luther King Jr: Who Is Right? – Analyzing Their Arguments and Beliefs

Essay: Socrates vs. Martin Luther King Jr: Who Is Right? – Analyzing Their Arguments and Beliefs

Essay details and download:

  • Subject area(s): Sample essays
  • Reading time: 5 minutes
  • Price: Free download
  • Published: 1 April 2019*
  • File format: Text
  • Words: 1,477 (approx)
  • Number of pages: 6 (approx)
  • Tags: Martin Luther King Essays

Text preview of this essay:

This page of the essay has 1,477 words. Download the full version above.

The two extraordinary logical figures, Socrates and Martin Luther King Junior, each contend for an alternate meaning of the connection between the individual and the law. With unequivocally differentiating factious styles, Socrates and King both seek separate specialists for good direction. Both contend convincingly, yet who is correct? Would it be a good idea for us to comply with a tradition that must be adhered to and endure bad form, as Socrates would have us do, or would it be a good idea for us to confront unfairness and rather comply with a higher, characteristic law, as King supposes we should? By looking into their contentions, dialect and support, this exposition will uncover whose contention is more grounded.

In Crito, Socrates asks, "Shall I do what is right, or not?" Proceeds to set up what he supposes are correct for him to comply with the state. He recognizes that he is in a suggested contract with the state and is committed to complying with its laws. His premises paving the way to this end are many. For one, he asserts that the state brought him into reality, as his mom and father were hitched by the laws of the state. The state additionally outfitted him with training. Consequently, he asserts that his relationship to the state is undifferentiated from that of Tyke and his father, or slave and ace, and he has no privilege to resist. By remaining in Athens when he has had abundant chances to escape, having his youngsters there and appreciating the advantages of its citizenship, Socrates has gone into a suggested contract with the state to comply with its laws. Consequently Socrates thinks of it as unvirtuous to escape from prison, and as a thinker who has maintained excellence in his lessons, he would negate his methods of insight by submitting such an unvirtuous demonstration.

Socrates likewise has pragmatic explanations behind, not escaping. On the off chance that he left with his companions and youngsters, they would be denied the advantages of Athenian citizenship, and would be viewed as criminals who are rebellious to the arrangement with the government. In less humanized terrain than Athens, they would be in the organization of culprits. In this manner, if he somehow happened to escape Athens, he would be wrong and disfavoring his family and companions, which would without a doubt be an unvirtuous demonstration. In this way, Socrates' last decision is that however he has been unfairly imprisoned and is destined to be executed, his solitary choice in the event that he is to keep up his temperance and not wrongs his family and companions, and the government is to comply with the law and stay in prison.

In a letter from the Birmingham Jail, King traces a significantly diverse demeanor toward the law. While trying to change isolation laws in the South, King specifically abuses the laws and after that acknowledges his discipline for them. Ruler conceives that the isolation issue must be tackled by arrangement, however he additionally believes that the infringing upon of laws is important to produce the imaginative strain through which the genuine idea of the issue can be uncovered and after that consulted upon. Lord asserts that laws that damage and debase humankind and which are dispensed upon a minority with no voice in the vote-based process are unjustifiable. He at that point calls attention to the fact that isolation corrupts human identity, and in light of the fact that dark people in the South are disallowed from casting a ballot they don't have a voice in the popularity based process. In this way he characterizes isolation as an outline of the law. He at that point considers any law that isolates individuals as evil. Since isolation is by definition the division of individuals, he considers it a corrupt law. Since St. Augustine guarantees that "an out-of-line law is no law by any means," King trusts that such crooked laws ought to be broken. This is a solid contention, since his target group is ministers who seek the holy book for direction.

Though Socrates seeks the state for laws that ought to be complied, King rather looks to a higher, characteristic law. We know this since he utilizes Jesus for instance of "radicalism for affection", and in light of the fact that he communicates his failure that the congregation has not been an ethical signal driving Christians to "more elevated amounts of equity." Accordingly, while the idea of 'common law' is very obscure, King adequately furnishes us with a definition by likening it with Christianity. All things considered, his contention somehow or another relies on the conviction of the peruser; on the off chance that one doesn't acknowledge the book of scriptures as a definitive manual for ethical quality and prudence, King's contentions are debilitated in light of the fact that they rely upon tolerating the Bible as the explicit meaning of "characteristic law." Without learning and acknowledgment of a good book, this meaning of goodness is either to a great degree unclear or inapplicable. Does that debilitate King's contention? I would say as much, however most by far the Americans King spoke to in his lessons were Christian, so his religious contentions were well taken. Despite the fact that tolerating his explanations behind maintaining temperance relies on confidence in the Bible, his contention still holds due to the down to earth reasons he displays for resisting the law. In particular, he contends with a sound rationale that the best way to open up transactions on the isolation law and at last correct it is to challenge isolation to produce an imaginative strain that conveys the issue to the bleeding edge of American awareness. Other than maintaining temperance by not conforming to an out-of-line law, he likewise tries to change isolated circumstances by direct activity. This is a useful explanation behind his immediate activity that can be acknowledged in any case in the event that one concurs with his meaning of prudence.

Socrates, then again, depends to a limited extent on characterizing the state as closely resembling guardians or a slave ace. I think this is a somewhat feeble similarity, in light of the fact that the slave-ace relationship isn't one that would be esteemed by a slave in the manner in which that Socrates esteems his relationship to the state. Additionally, guardians have an unrestricted love for their kids, which would infer a readiness to excuse, and that isn't the situation for the state and its subjects. Along these lines, the state-subject relationship isn't as alluring as a parent-tyke relationship. Therefore I don't purchase him practically equivalent to contention. Likewise, when he guarantees that in city-states other than Athens his personal satisfaction will be decreased, i.e. he will be in an organization of less edified men and won't appreciate certain advantages that as far as anyone knows no one but Athens can give him, he doesn't back up his premises. In this manner I find that I need to underestimate that Athens is the best place in the Greek domain to live for his contention that it is temperate to comply with the law to be compelling, and he doesn't completely persuade me regarding this. Mr. Ruler's contentions concerning the ideals of infringing upon uncalled laws are solid for the sheer number of premises he backs up his contentions with. Thus, since King presents such a large number of premises and characterizes his ambiguous terms, and Socrates rather depends simply on what are in my mind feeble analogies and a lacking number of premises, King's contention overall is extensively more grounded.

Another reason I should seriously mull over King's contention more grounded than Socrates' is his utilization of dialect. While Socrates's tone is direct and coherent, it comes up short on the instinctive punch of King's sincerely provocative dialect. Such lingual authority as "… so people can ascend from the subjugation of fantasies … enable men to ascend from the dull profundities of bias and bigotry to the great statures of comprehension and fellowship," ground-breaking analogies like "… see the discouraging billow of mediocrity start to shape in her little mental sky," and extreme symbolism like "… detest filled policemen kick, revile, brutalize and even execute your dark siblings and sisters… " powers the peruser to draw in with King's battle on a gut level. While King's rationale sounds without this emotive dialect, it adds a considerable amount to his contention since it forbids the peruser to disregard the feelings King and his individual blacks feel, and consequently powers the peruser to all the more likely comprehend and identify with the battle blacks confront day by day. Along these lines, without depending only on feeling, King fortifies his contention with a strongly emotive dialect.

...(download the rest of the essay above)

About this essay:

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, Socrates vs. Martin Luther King Jr: Who Is Right? – Analyzing Their Arguments and Beliefs. Available from:<https://www.essaysauce.com/sample-essays/2018-12-7-1544147598/> [Accessed 18-09-23].

These Sample essays have been submitted to us by students in order to help you with your studies.

* This essay may have been previously published on Essay.uk.com at an earlier date.