Although Martin Luther King, Jr. was not a philosopher, one of the best introductions to the philosophy of law is King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail." In 1963, King peacefully demonstrated for civil rights in Birmingham, Alabama, even though a judge had declared such demonstrations to be illegal. He was arrested and taken to Birmingham jail. While imprisoned, King read a newspaper article written by several clergyman criticizing his methods and calling on civil rights advocates to be more patient and not to violate the law. He wrote "Letter" in response. What's philosophically interesting about this exchange between King and his critics is that it illustrates two opposing philosophies of law: Natural Law Theory (NLT) and Legal Positivism (LP).
NLT and LP take opposing views on the nature of law:
| Natural Law Theory | Legal Positivism |
|---|---|
| The law is shaped by prior moral laws. | The law is the decree of a sovereign authority. |
| The law must not conflict with moral law. | The law does not take into account moral law. |
| A bad law is not a law. | A bad law is still a law. |
| We are not obligated to obey bad laws. | We are obligated to obey all laws. |
NLT has its roots in Augustine and Aquinas, both of whom understood human law to be subordinate to higher forms of law. LP has it roots in Plato's Crito and Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. Legal positivists believe that a law is nothing more than the decree of a sovereign authority and is not subordinate to any higher forms of law.
A key argument made by legal positivists is that it's inconsistent to obey some laws and not others. Indeed, Socrates chose to drink hemlock rather than to escape Athens on the grounds that it would be inconsistent for him to disobey Athenian law after a lifetime of benefiting from Athenian law (see the Crito). King's critics accused King of being inconsistent for obeying some laws but not others. King responded by invoking Natural Law:
You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may want to ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all"
This is classic NLT; a law that contradicts moral law is not a law at all, and we are not obligated to obey such laws:
How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.
"Letter" is a powerful expression of Natural Law Theory and a masterpiece of argumentation. It's also a good example of how philosophy can inform the way we think about public policy.
Further reading:
"Letter from Birmingham Jail" by Martin Luther King, Jr.
Crito by Plato.
No comments:
Post a Comment