Martin Luther King Jr Vs Socrates Analysis

Martin Luther king Jr. and Socrates both have quite a different opinions on the role of the laws in the society. One should keep in mind that both individuals had dealt with totally different political situations. MLK Jr. was dealing with racial segregation whereas, Socrates was dealing with disagreements of religious ideas and practices of the Athens at that time. However, both advocate that general public of the society should think for themselves and not fall prey to the common rationale associated with the times they were in.
MLK Jr. found the laws of America in 1960s unjust and unequal, and wanted to end racial segregation and discrimination in the United States. He wanted racial equality for all African American people. For this he organized many nonviolent sit-ins and marches. Which were indeed violating of the laws of that time, but MLK Jr. believed that it is necessary and sometime mandatory to break such unjust laws “One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. Dr.
He believes that these laws has given him birth, have educated him, raised him and have shared the wealth of Athens with him. Socrates thinks that the people of Athens are free to leave if they find the laws unjust, but if they want to stay then they must abide by the laws of Athens. The only thing that he points out are the people in power. He thinks that the people who are in power have changed the original laws for their own benefit. “been wronged, not by the Laws, but by men” (p 54). Socrates accepts death penalty because he wants the laws should be remain in place. Given opportunities such as exile or apology, he argues that if he escape from the prison, it will destroy the laws of the city and, eventually, the city because according to Socrates no city can survive without its laws being enforced. Therefore, Socrates steadfast by his believes of not violating any