David Guillen

Professor Sergienko

PHIL&101

22 May 2022

Philosophy Paper #2 (Question 3)

Civil disobedience has always been controversial, but there have been works put out by

famous philosophers and historical figures to help explain this concept. Three of the most

famous works include Plato’s “Crito”, Henry Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience”, and MLK’s

“Letter from a Birmingham Jail”. While there is a great deal of knowledge to be drawn from all

three of these writings, the author’s view of civil disobedience which is best is MLK’s “Letter

from a Birmingham Jail”.

To explain why this is the case, one must understand the author’s views on civil

disobedience. Starting off with Plato’s argument, Socrates believes that given the circumstances,

relying on public opinion/the masses as a justification to break the law is untimely. Adding on,

even if Socrates’s sentence is truly unjust, it is important to accept that the citizens are bound by

a “social contract”, where citizens agree to obey the laws of the state in exchange for the state’s

protection. In Socrates’s case, if he were to escape jail, he would be violating the social contract

that he has accepted, undermining the integrity and structure of the laws bestowed upon him. It

would also label him as an outcast inside and outside of the state, making his presence

unfavorable for any government. In short, Plato seems to disregard civil disobedience as an

option of political action.

In Henry Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience”, Thoreau takes a positive stance toward civil

disobedience. Thoreau argues that under current circumstances, the government is in no way
useful to the people and its law perpetuates evil instead of what is right. Such is the case in

Thoreau’s explanation of the Mexican-American war, where he argues that people’s commitment

to the law is leading them to put aside their moral sense, which has led to more unjustness

instead of justness. The response to such unjustness is to avoid associating with the government

altogether. One must set aside the privileges and services one enjoys for the sake of doing what is

just, even if it means they are seen as outcasts. Thoreau also claims that if one wants to see

change that will promote justice, one should not rely on voting or the government to do so. Not

only is it inefficient and time-consuming to promote reform in government, but government also

relies on injustice to promote its self-interest. In regards to voting, Thoreau argues that voting is

simply not enough. The way he sees it, voting is just people desiring change, but it is taking no

proper action to promote change, especially considering the problems the government has. In

general, Thoreau believes civil disobedience in the form of disassociating from the government

in all aspects (including taking action against the government) is the best way to promote justice

and eliminate injustice, and one cannot rely on the government to promote such change.

In Martin Luther King Jr’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, MLK sees civil

disobedience as an important step toward enhancing the civil rights of African Americans. He

argues that seeking negotiations would be a more favorable option instead of civil disobedience,

but the pushback from government and business leaders has given the reverend no choice but to

use nonviolent demonstration to create “tension” among the community in an effort to get what

civil rights leaders want. Similar to Thoreau, MLK also shares dissatisfaction with the way the

government has handled the issue of segregation, and for the most part, the efforts in fighting for

civil rights must be carried out by the oppressed as the oppressor will never voluntarily give such

freedoms so easily. MLK also claims that just because his demonstrations may appear to be
“breaking the law”, it doesn’t mean he seeks to break the “just” laws; he is simply protesting the

unjust ones. Finally, MLK expresses his discontent with his white supporters, claiming their

unwillingness to support/promote nonviolent demonstrations is not only maintaining the status

quo of segregation but is also harming the movement’s goals.

As it relates to comparing which author’s view of civil disobedience is best, MLK’s view

is the best for the following reasons: In general, Plato believes that only listening to public

opinion may disrupt or corrupt good decision-making. Perhaps Plato’s reasoning is based on his

skepticism of human nature. But MLK makes the point that without actions taken by the masses,

there will be no motivation by the experts or wise men of justice to carry out what is truly right.

There is no doubt that negotiation or persuasion is a much more favorable path compared to that

of civil disobedience, but MLK raises that civil disobedience by the masses brings to light the

injustices created by a system that is meant to create good. Sure, human nature can be a driving

force for evil, but MLK also recognizes that the masses can be misled and ill-advised which is

why Americans still refuse to fight against segregation, but that does not mean that the masses

should be counted out in the fight for justice. Human nature can recognize good and evil, and in

MLK’s case, the masses can be used to bring positive change.

As it relates to Plato’s ideas of the social contract, Plato believes that violating one law of

the social contract violates all the laws in the social contract. However, MLK points out that

there are laws that are just and unjust. Just laws should be followed, but unjust laws should not.

One would not be violating the social contract if one were to protest unjust laws such as

segregation, in fact, protesting and demanding the elimination of unjust laws can be seen as

citizens upholding the principles of justice under the social contract. If MLK was discussing the

social contract with Socrates, MLK would make the claim that the US’s social contract is
determined by arbitrary factors such as race. While the social contract may benefit people such

as Socrates, it clearly does not benefit MLK, and due to this unequal benefit, MLK would argue

that the US has failed to evenly hold its end of the bargain, which justified the need for civil

disobedience.

One of the main points that Thoreau expresses is his opposition to majority rule. Due to

the opinion of the majority, many have become complacent with the actions of the government.

Instead, he proposes that one should not blindly follow what the government says, rather, one

should follow their own conscience and the principles of reason. This individualistic thought is

what he believes will lead the charge against the government’s rule, and to an extent, there is

merit to this claim. After all, people such as MLK used their own individual conscience to fight

what is wrong. However, MLK recognizes that within society, there lies a pro-white bias that the

people seem to take comfort in. After all, they have never experienced the effects of slavery or

segregation, so while they may stand in favor of the end of segregation, the pro-white bias in the

system may prevent free-thinking individuals from doing what is right. MLK describes this with

his complaints about the “white moderate”, which describes that although white people may

claim to be against segregation, they will never seek or support the means to end segregation as

the means to the end threatens their social status. MLK would likely point out that individual

thought does not eliminate individual interest, and acts such as disassociating from government

only do so much before people start seeking out the protections and privileges they once had.

In short, while Plato and Thoreau have views on civil disobedience that are worth

admiring, MLK’s interpretation of the social contract, the power of the masses, and his

recognition of “pro-white bias” add a far deeper and more analytical view of civil disobedience

that can be applied to the current-day context of society.