The Philosophy of Socrates vs.

MLK

POL200Y5 Y: Political theory

October 20th, 2022

 In Plato’s The Trial and Death of Socrates the chapter called Crito is the dialogue
between Crito and Socrates. In this section of the book, Socrates mainly argues that he must stay
in prison, and accept the punishment given by the Athenians because it is considered the just
thing to do (Plato, 2000). In Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter from Birmingham Jail, he is writing
this letter to clergymen and goes over aspects of injustice, justice, and direct action in the form of
nonviolent resistance (King 1963). Now that the basic arguments of both these papers have been
discussed, I argue that in Socrates's view he would ultimately disagree with MLK since MLK’s
actions would not be considered just, he would be breaking the social contract, and finally, he
would be breaking the law.
Based on what was gathered from the text it can be said that Socrates would argue to
MLK that continuing with his actions involving the nonviolent resistance, would make him an
unjust man. This is because in the text he states that we must do what is correct and
morally just (Plato 2000, 47d). In Socrates's point of view, this means following and abiding by
civil duty as well as what the majority of the city says is right (Plato 2000, 47d). Since this is
what he believes will make a just man he would argue to MLK that he must accept the
punishment given by the law. To go against the city and law would result in them trying to
destroy the city, which would lead to MLK being an unjust man in the eyes of the law (Plato
2000 50d-e). Another argument that Socrates would make against MLK, and his actions is that
by proceeding with the resistance it would be going against those who have wronged MLK and
the black community.
In the text, Socrates makes it clear that one should never do wrong to anyone even if
someone has wronged them in the past (Plato 2000, 49c-d). He then would argue that even
though MLK and the black community have been wronged they should still abide by the rules
because the laws are put in place to make a just city. In MLK’s letter, he states that he does not
believe that he should obey any law that is unjust because a law that is unjust should not be
considered a law at all (King 1963, 3). In response to this argument, Socrates would say that
even if the law is unjust, it is still a law and thus it must be followed.
MLK in his letter makes a claim about laws and explains that laws need to be just. In
order for a law to be just it needs to be able to uplift people whereas a law that ultimately
degrades human personality would be considered an unjust law (King 1963, 3). Socrates sees the
law as a promise and to break the law is like to break a promise and this to him would be
unjust. In the text, Socrates also states that in the city there is a social contract that everyone must
obey (Plato 2000, 51c-d). In his view, he sees this as a fair contract, and if it is broken then the
one who breaks it must follow through with the punishment. (Plato 2000, 51c-d). Socrates
believes that since the city has allowed you to enjoy its way of life one is then obligated not to go
against the city or the laws that are put in place (Plato 2000, 51c-d). For example, he states in the
text that the city has firstly allowed one to be given birth, secondly, the city has allowed one to
be educated, and finally, the city has allowed one to in the end live and enjoy the city (Plato
2000, 51c-d). In return all the city asks is that one must obey the rules and if they cannot abide,
they will be faced with trial and consequences (Plato 2000, 51e).
When it comes to MLK Socrates would argue that because the government has allowed
MLK and the black community to be birthed, educated, and live in America, then in return they
should not break the rules and laws and do what is asked of them no matter if they think it is
right or not. In the text, Socrates emphasizes the importance of obeying the law and he states that
if one were to be unsatisfied with the city or its rules and laws then they are welcome to leave
and live anywhere else (Plato 2000, 51d). Due to this he would disagree with MLK and argue
that instead of breaking the law and continuing with his actions he would be better off leaving
America and going somewhere else.
After reading and examining both texts I think that Socrates and his views are wrong. In
the text his approach is to do what is morally correct and just, abiding by the social contract, and
he emphasizes obeying the law (Plato, 2000). Although this seems to be simple and
straightforward, I find it to be more complex. For example, the text, states that Socrates had been
wrongfully accused of his crimes, yet he would still be willing to accept the punishment (Plato,
2000). This is due to the fact that by trying to run and escape he would then be considered an
unjust man which goes against his philosophy (Plato, 2000). MLK on the other hand would not
accept the punishment because to him it would be unjust for anyone to accept punishment for
something they had not done. Socrates then believes that being executed is the right decision
since in the eyes of the law it is correct, and in the end would make him a just man. MLK would
disagree with Socrates because he would argue that just because it’s the law that does not mean it
is always correct.
In general, this does not seem to be a great approach because it allows for the city and the
people to still get away with crime and in the end, the city would then be unjust. I think that
MLK had a better approach because he did not allow the government to wrongfully
convict him. He fought for what he thought was morally correct and just in the eyes of the
black community. In the text, MLK agrees with Socrates saying that it is not right to
harm anyone (King 1963, 2). Thus, his approach was to cause nonviolent tension that would
allow the government to understand that change and growth is necessary (King 1963, 2).
In the text, MLK also talks about how he does not encourage people to break laws (King
1963, 2). However, he does believe that if they are going to break laws, then it should be an
unjust and morally wrong law. Also, they must do it openly and be willing to accept the
punishment (King 1963, 3). In MLK's letter, he believes that the people have
the moral responsibility to act in a nonviolent way instead of waiting for the government to
finally step in and help (King, 1963). Overall, based on both approaches MLK’s approach
seemed to be the one that sounded more justifiable compared to Socrates. This was because
instead of accepting a bad fate MLK acted in order for justice to be given to the
black community. Whereas Socrates accepted death for something he did not do.
After going through both readings carefully and analyzing the arguments made by both
these figures. It has been argued that Socrates would disagree with the actions of MLK. This was
since in Socrates's view MLK was not being a just man, he broke the social contract, and he was
breaking the law. MLK did many things wrong in Socrates's eyes therefore he would not
willingly agree that what MLK was doing is right. This is because all of MLK's actions go
against Socrates and his philosophy and values. Their approaches to these situations were
completely different, I argued that Socrates and his views were in fact wrong. As well as that
MLK had a better approach that was more justifiable compared to Socrates and him accepting a
wrongful punishment.
 References
Plato G. M. A Grube and John M Cooper. 2000. The Trial and Death of Socrates: Euthyphro
Apology Crito Death Scene from Phaedo. 3rd ed. Indianapolis IN: Hackett Pub.
King, Martin Luther, Jr. 1963, “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” The Atlantic Monthly.