Martin Luther King, Jr. “Letter from a Birmingham...

Martin Luther King, Jr.“Letter from a Birmingham Jail”

Set-Up

• Like Socrates in The Crito, King findshimself in prison after engaging in actsof civil disobedience

• “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justiceeverywhere”

Who He’s Writing To…

• Fellow Clergy• Moderate white people

A Quick Lesson in Logic

• “You deplore the demonstrations taking place inBirmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say,fails to express a similar concern for the conditionsthat brought about the demonstrations. I am sure thatnone of you would want to rest content with thesuperficial kind of social analysis that deals merelywith effects and does not grapple with underlyingcauses. It is unfortunate that demonstrations aretaking place in Birmingham, but it is even moreunfortunate that the city's white power structure leftthe Negro community with no alternative.”

A Quick Lesson in Logic

• Every effect has a cause (Aristotle)• In other words:

– His critics deplore the demonstrations(critique of the cause of strife).

– But King points out they’re not critiquingthe cause of strife, they’re critiquing theeffect of a previous strife, I.e., the racismthat precipitated the demonstrationsthemselves

What we want to look for:

• Most of us have read this already,several read it several times, at least.So! We’re going to look at it from anangle you might not have looked at it frobefore: philosophy

• King was very knowledgable about theentire history of philosophy

Four Philosophers

• King references four major philosophersin the “Letter”:– Socrates– St. Augustine– St. Aquinas– Martin Buber

Socrates: Civil Disobedience

• From our readings, Socrates forged aphilosophy of civil disobedience based onseveral related principles:– (1) Just because an Authority (government) says

something is good or bad (makes laws) doesn’tmean that something is good or bad

– (2) Complacency and passivity are the enemies ofpositive social change. We need “gadflies” torouse the people!

– (3) Never do harm willingly; never retaliate

Now: Let’s see what King hasto say…

• “In any nonviolent campaign there are fourbasic steps: collection of the facts todetermine whether injustices exist;negotiation; self purification; and directaction.”– Key here is the collection of facts followed by

negotiation as the first two steps. In other words:figure out what really is going on, and then engagein dialogue with those with whom you disagree

• Sound like the Socratic Method?

Self-purification

• “We began a series of workshops onnonviolence, and we repeatedly askedourselves: "Are you able to acceptblows without retaliating?" "Are you ableto endure the ordeal of jail?””– Do you think Socrates asked himself

similar questions?

“Tension”

• For Socrates, complacency and passivitywere the enemies of social change andpersonal development.– Consider again: what was his definition of

“wisdom”? What did it try to get people to do? Ifsomeone is unwise in this specific way, what isthat person not motivated to do? What didSocrates try to do to those whom he discoveredwere unwise? How did this help them?

“Tension”• “You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins,

marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a betterpath?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation.Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action.Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisisand foster such a tension that a community whichhas constantly refused to negotiate is forced toconfront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issuethat it can no longer be ignored. My citing thecreation of tension as part of the work of thenonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But Imust confess that I am not afraid of the word"tension.””

“Tension”

• In other words, without “tension” there’sno motivation for change. The oppositeof tension is complacency. Incomplacency, there’s no motivation forchange.– We must, then, create tension in the minds

of people whom we wish to see startrethinking the issues at hand

How does Socrates create tension?

• Euthyphro:• “I know what piety

means already, Idon’t need to rethinkit”– Definition was awful

• Socrates:• “Tell me your

definition, then? Ah,no, it’s not verygood, what aboutthis…or this…orthis…or this…”– “okay, okay! Ah! I

need to rethink this!”

How does Socrates creation tension?

• If Socrates did to Euthyphro to everyone(which he did), the result is not only tension inthe minds of individual people on individualissues, but, far more importantly, tension inthe minds of everyone. Tension betweenwhat?– What they think they know and what might really

be true.– What they’re told to believe by the Authority and

the Truth

Back to King…

• “I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there isa type of constructive, nonviolent tension which isnecessary for growth.”– Was Socrates’ method of tension-creation

nonviolent?– In what way did Socrates also believe that

“tension” was “necessary for growth”?• Tie-in with his definition of “wisdom”

Back to King…

• “Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary tocreate a tension in the mind so thatindividuals could rise from the bondage ofmyths and half truths to the unfettered realmof creative analysis and objective appraisal,so must we see the need for nonviolentgadflies to create the kind of tension insociety that will help men rise from the darkdepths of prejudice and racism to the majesticheights of understanding and brotherhood.”

Let’s break it down!

• Myths/half-truths --> creative analysis andobjective appraisal– No longer rely on the myths of the gods (“busies

himself studying things in the sky/below the earth,”etc.)

– Note: “creative analysis” and “objective appraisal”isn’t the same as “Truth.” Socrates wasn’t givingthe Truth. What he was doing was getting peopleto finally think for themselves (no more god myths,no more half-truths from the Authority, etc.).Analyze for yourself! Appraise the situationyourself!

Let’s Break it Down!

• “Need for nonviolent gadflies to create thekind of tension in society that will help menrise from prejudice and racism tounderstanding and brotherhood.”– Gadfly analogy!!!! The gadfly seeks to create

tension which is another way of saying he/sheseeks to get rid of passivity and complacency.

– For King: what passivity and complacency wasgoing on in America than he needed to gadfly?

Dialogue

• Remember the difference between theSocratic Method and the BankingMethod of education? Remember howSocrates did philosophy, in general?

• Check this out…

Dialogue

• “The purpose of our direct action program isto create a situation so crisis packed that itwill inevitably open the door to negotiation. Itherefore concur with you in your call fornegotiation. Too long has our belovedSouthland been bogged down in a tragiceffort to live in monologue rather thandialogue.”

Breaking the Law?

• Remember: Socrates said we ought tonever break the law (this would bedoing harm willingly to the city, and oneshould never do harm willingly). ButKing clearly breaks the law. How do wereconcile this? Let’s see what Kingsays…

Breaking the Law

• “You express a great deal of anxiety over ourwillingness to break laws. This is certainly alegitimate concern. Since we so diligentlyurge people to obey the Supreme Court'sdecision of 1954 outlawing segregation in thepublic schools, at first glance it may seemrather paradoxical for us consciously to breaklaws. One may well ask: "How can youadvocate breaking some laws and obeyingothers?" The answer lies in the fact that thereare two types of laws: just and unjust.”

Just vs. Unjust Laws

• Just Laws• “I would be the first

to first to advocateobeying just laws.One has not only alegal but a moralresponsibility toobey just laws. ”

• Unjust Laws• “Conversely, one

has a moralresponsibility todisobey unjust laws.I would agree withSt. Augustine that"an unjust law is nolaw at all.””

St. Augustine

• St. Augustine was a medieval philosopher (aswe recall from our opening lecture, medievalphilosophers attempted to mergePlato/Aristotle with the Gospel of Christ…theresult of their work is what we call “ChristianTheology” today).

• St. Augustine was such a huge fan ofSocrates and Plato that he’s often referred toas a “Neoplatonist.” Here we have a greatexample of this…

Universal Definitions

• Remember: Socrates was after universaldefinitions of ethical terms (like impiety/pietyin The Euthyphro). In other words, he wastrying to get a definition that would fit any andall examples (A-Rod, Bernie Madoff, etc.)

• Another word for Piety is the Good (the moralgood). Socrates believes that the Goodexisted in such a way that, if we can knowwhat it means to be Good, we can use thatdefinition to look into examples of people’sactions and compare them to that definition

St. Augustine

• And, for the Christian, what is thesource of the Good? What is the sourceof the all ethics?

God!

• God, for St. Augustine, is what Socratesmeant by the Good.

• This association leads to what St.Augustine and St. Aquinas would call“Natural Law Theory,” an ethical theorythat King, himself, believes in!

Natural Law Theory

• There are two kinds of laws in NaturalLaw Theory:– Divine Law/God’s Law

• Eternal, unchanging– Human laws

• Temporal, changing

Natural Law Theory

• For Socrates, if we can define Piety/TheGood, we can use that definition andapply it to all sorts of specific situationsto see if people are acting Good or Evil.

• For King, if we can define God’s Law,we can use that definition and apply it toall sorts of specific human laws and seeif those laws are just or unjust.

Natural Law Theory

• But like Socrates, the definition has to be asgeneral as possible to make sure all sorts ofexamples (from sports to finance) can fit intoit.

• Thus, King’s definition has to be general: itcan’t be “the ten commandments” or “thegolden rule,” but the general principles ofjustice that make those things what they are

Here’s How King DefinesGod’s Law

• “A just law is a man made code that squareswith the moral law or the law of God. An unjustlaw is a code that is out of harmony with themoral law. To put it in the terms of St. ThomasAquinas: An unjust law is a human law that isnot rooted in eternal law and natural law.”

Here’s How King DefinesGod’s Law

• (1) “Any law that upliftshuman personality isjust”

• (2) “A just law is a codethat a majority compelsa minority to follow andthat it is willing to followitself.”– This is “sameness made

legal”

• (1) “Any law thatdegrades humanpersonality is unjust”

• (2) “An unjust law is acode that a numerical orpower majority groupcompels a minoritygroup to obey but doesnot make binding onitself”– This is “difference made

legal”

Power Majority

• Key to King’s definition of God’s law isthe notion of a “power majority.” Apower majority is not a majority in thenormal sense. A power majority is thetotal traits that the people in powershare in common (I.e., in a country with52% women, power can still be in thehands of 100% men).

Power Majority

• Who holds all the power in America?– Politicians– Corporate CEOs– The hyper wealthy– Etc.

Close your eyes for a moment and imagine theaverage politician, for example. What does thisperson look like? What traits does this personhave?

Power Majority

• The Power Majority in America is:– White– Male– Wealthy– Old– Protestant– Heterosexual

Power Majority

• Yes…that includes this guy.

Power Majority vs. PowerMinority

• Power Majority– White– Male– Wealthy– Old– Protestant– Heterosexual

• Power Minorities– Non-white– Female– Poor– Young– Non-Protestant– Homosexual

Looking at his definition again:

• Any law in which a power majoritycreates a law for a power minority thatis not binding on the power majority thatmade it is unjust.

• Let’s take a few examples:

Difference Made Legal

• “Women can’t vote.”

• Who’s the power majority making thatdecision?

• Who’s the power minority beingimpacted?

• Does the law apply to the people thatmade it?

Difference Made Legal

• “Segregation statutes”• “All segregation statutes are unjust

because segregation distorts the souland damages the personality. It givesthe segregator a false sense ofsuperiority and the segregated a falsesense of inferiority.”

Martin Buber

• King: “Segregation, to use theterminology of the Jewish philosopherMartin Buber, substitutes an "I it"relationship for an "I thou" relationshipand ends up relegating persons to thestatus of things.”

Martin Buber

• Buber was an early 20th centuryexistentialist and one of the greatestJewish theologians of the modern era.In his main book, he argues that allpeople, all the time, engage in one oftwo relationships with other people:– (1) An I-It relationship– (2) An I-Thou relationship

Martin Buber

• I-It• This relationship is

the most common,happens about 99%of the time,sometimes onpurpose, sometimesjust accidentally

• I-Thou• Far more

uncommon, onlyabout 1% of the timedoes this actuallyhappen

Martin Buber

• “I” = the “self.” Youare:– A free, autonomous,

intelligent individualwith hopes, dreams,fears, wonder,passion, flaws, joy,etc.

• “It” = the other asobject.– You fail to see those “I”

traits in the other andreduce them to a mereobject like a table orchair. Treat them asmeans to your own ends.

• “Thou” = the other as aself just like the “I,” justlike you.– Treat others as ends in

themselves, as you wantto be treated yourself

Martin Buber

• I-It = you see others as supportingcharacters in your story

• I-Thou = you see others as maincharacters in their own stories, not justsupporting characters in yours

• Experiment: “the gaze”

Martin Buber

• Goal: change, as often as you can, yourI-It relationships into I-Thourelationships– A good start is to never treat other people

as means to your own goals. Treat them asends in themselves.

– Remind yourself that, in their own gaze atyou, you are their supporting character.

Unjust Laws

• Any human law that fails to reflectGod’s Law is unjust. God’s Law upliftshuman dignity and violations of thisPower Majority rule fail to uplift humandignity.

• Now: since God is Good, for King, andGod is the source of the Divine Law, theDivine Law must also be…

Unjust Laws

• …GOOD! Which means: unjust laws are notonly unjust but immoral (they are not Good).That’s why he says we have not only a legalbut a moral obligation to defy those laws!

• This is radical: he’s not saying ignore unjustlaws…he’s straight up saying BREAK thosethings because they are, in short, Evil anddefy the Law of God.

But…Socrates said…?

• “Never break the law,” right? King agrees.No, really, he does. He just adds this onebrilliant wrinkle from St. Augustine: “an unjustlaw is no law at all.”

• Thus…whenever King encounters an unjustlaw, he breaks it. But he’s still agreeing withSocrates that one should never break the law!Can you see how? :)

Reference to Euthyphro

• Remember, in Euthyphro, Socratesdisagreed with Euthy that what is Goodis whatever the Authority loves. Justbecause the Authority makes a lawdoesn’t make that law good…

• “We should never forget that everythingAdolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal””

Respect for Socrates!

• “In your statement you assert that our actions,even though peaceful, must be condemnedbecause they precipitate violence. But is thisa logical assertion? Isn't this like condemninga robbed man because his possession ofmoney precipitated the evil act of robbery?Isn't this like condemning Socrates becausehis unswerving commitment to truth and hisphilosophical inquiries precipitated the act bythe misguided populace in which they madehim drink hemlock?”

Respect for Socrates!

• “Of course, there is nothing new aboutthis kind of civil disobedience…to adegree, academic freedom is a realitytoday because Socrates practiced civildisobedience.”