Both the Euthypro's answer to Socrates and the ministers of Birmingham's response
Both the Euthypro's answer to Socrates and the ministers of Birmingham's response to the freedom movement in Birmingham were based on a partial understanding of what is just. The two examples show how people might prescribe justice and holiness in ways that are beneficial to their circumstances and ways of thinking. In the two situations, it is clear that the ministers of Birmingham and Euthyphro justify their choices and ways of thinking in a way that reveals their warped interpretation of what they believe just with less consideration of the prevailing factors that may prove otherwise. Although the definition of just and right actions can be difficult to cut out explicitly, it is evident in the two cases that in the challenging endeavor to prescribe the moral justice, individuals tend to use their situations and to think to justify actions and speech (King Jr, 177-187).
According to the ministers of Birmingham
According to the ministers of Birmingham, the non-violent direct-action activities in Birmingham were a disturbance of peace, tranquility and economy of the city and only served to precipitate anarchy and violence. The need for demonstrations by the black segregated communities in their quest for dialogue and justice was, therefore, unwise and untimely. They only cared for the peace of the city with no consideration to the injustice that was perpetrated against the black people. This inconsiderate application of justice disregarded the plight of the black people and consequently the situations that led to the peaceful picketing. This is also reflected in the response of Euthyphro to Socrates where Euthyphro is inconsiderate of the situation that resulted in the death of the murderer laborer and only centers his argument on the injustice of murder (Jones, 931).
In this regard, the two scenarios are inconsiderate of the conditions that bring an injustice to the occurrence and only centers on the legality of the consequences. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr puts it, a law can be just on its face but unjust in how it is applied. In the two cases, the justness of the concerns is well founded, but the conditions and the application of justice in determining what is morally just are controversial and not well thought out.
2. How did Socrates's skepticism differ from that of Descartes? Which one is closer to the skepticism of King?
Socrates skepticism is different from Descartes skepticism in a couple of ways. Whereas Socrates skepticism is argued from analysis and considerations of ideas and arguments, Descartes skepticism is based on perception and meditation. Socrates analysis pointwise the ideas and arguments of Euthyphro on holiness and justice to the extent that Euthyphro is disturbed by how ideas keep going in circles. This is not reflected in the skepticism of Descartes which is based on meditations and critical considerations of perception and beliefs. The two skepticism methods are therefore not similar although they serve to expose the authenticity of common beliefs and ideas in an attempt to bring out the underlying truths (Pelkmans, 1).
Considerably, Socrates skepticism method closely relates to the skepticism of King as compared to Descartes's skepticism (Jones, 931). His structured analysis of basic ideas and illustrations in the conversation closely relates to the response King gives to the ministers of Birmingham through the letter. In their quest to unearth the underlying issues and respond to the superficial thoughts of the ministers and Euthyphro, both break down the interpretations and opinions of the issues skeptically in a manner that Descartes does not use in his meditations. To be sure of ideas and perceptions, Descartes analyses their clarity and distinctiveness critically through perception and meditation whereas the other duo considers thoughts that precipitate the idea from certain premises. In this way, Socrates skepticism is closer to skepticism of King.
3. How did King's letter express Rousseau's idea of the general will?
According to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, general will is the culmination of society's individual wills, desires, and rights into a mutually agreed single unit where no individual claims greater influence or power on general will than the others. This is a fundamental cornerstone of social and personal freedom and forms basis for good governance as echoed by King. Rousseau argues that for an efficient government, the general will must be held paramount. According to King, the unjust government fails to recognize the Black voters in its voting and legislation and hence the laws put forth are unjust and skewed to curtail the fundamental freedom and essentially the general will of the people. In response to the ministers of Birmingham, King reiterates sentiments of inequality in government and social interactions due to racial segregation, and among his remedies, the general will in the wrongly constituted segregation laws is paramount. In his words, the constitution of segregation laws was not appropriately inclusive of the masses of Negro communities who were denied their right to vote despite constituting the majority population in some counties (Rousseau, 1).
In this way, the general will as put forth by Rousseau was not considered leading to the current state of aggravated restlessness from the victimized communities and the need for non-violent demonstrations. King's letter embodied the need for people's general will in the government and society as a remedy to injustice and lack of freedom. This way the resentment and possible violent retaliation from the oppressed would be averted. Furthermore, the degradation of human personality through unjust laws was causing tension that would ultimately precipitate violence and bloodshed if not addressed early (King Jr, 177-187).
4. Show that King's "Letter" embodies both On Liberty's (by John Stuart Mill) emphasis on freedom and Utilitarianism's (by Mill) emphasis on "The greatest good."
King's letter to the ministers clearly embodies expressions of the need for liberty and also a profound agreement to the Mill's views on freedom and utilitarianism. The moral rightness of an action according to Mill should serve the greater good whereas the freedom and liberties of individuals aid in the achievement of this greater good. The utilitarianism test of the rightness or wrongness of actions can be tied to the feeling of justice or injustice. In King's letter, for example, the hateful resentment developed by children towards the white people as a result of segregation in the use of recreational parks and other facilities, results from the curtailment of happiness in the utilitarianism theory and consequently leads to feelings of injustice and lack of personal liberty (Shaw, 47-69). In King's letter, the delivery of justice and liberty should serve the common good of the Black race population as well as the others through the abolishment of segregation laws and implementation of the first amendment privileges on antisegregation, peaceful assembly and non-violent picketing. According to the utilitarianism theory, any action or law that contravenes the wishes of the majority is profoundly wrong and also any laws that curtail a person's liberty if it does not harm another person is unjust and wrong. In this way, King's letter properly embodies liberty, freedom and utilitarianism and the overall emphasis on the greatest good as a moral indicator of the good and the bad and a deliverer of justice to the oppressed negroes (Thompson, 1).
5. How might King have solved a conflict between liberty or the greatest good? Or which would he have preferred in an irreconcilable conflict: Liberty or the greatest good? Why?
Sometimes, liberty conflicts with the society's greatest good. This is expressed in the situation brought out in Kings case where the society's greatest good is peace. However, the situation of injustice that the minority community finds itself in, and the need for liberty and freedom clearly conflicts with the greater good. This causes a lot of resistance from the white majority who accuse the freedom movement of disturbing the peace of the city and push the ministers to respond to the activities in rather unsympathetic terms. The ministers of Birmingham refer to the activities as unwise and untimely and castigate the movement for causing disturbance and tension while praising the police for averting chaos. In his response, King points to a situation of desperation and points out that the urgency of the negotiations warrants the creation of tension in a bid to realize liberty and freedom. In this manner, King inclines to consider liberty over the greatest good and openly asserts that it is not essentially wrong to use immoral means to achieve moral endings. Due to this, it is clear that King would have preferred liberty over the greatest good in a case of irreconcilable conflict. This is further compounded by his assertions that liberty is more beneficial in the long-run and as such in the case of any irreconcilable conflict between common good and liberty he would have preferred the latter (King Jr, 177-187).
Works cited
Jones, Gregory. "Over-Criminalization and the Need for a Crime Paradigm." Rutgers L. Rev. 66 (2013): 931.
King Jr, Martin Luther. "Letter from Birmingham jail." Liberating faith: Religious voices for justice, peace, and ecological wisdom (2012): 177-187.
Pelkmans, Mathijs. "OUTLINE FOR AN ETHNOGRAPHY or DOUBT." Ethnographies of doubt: faith and uncertainty in contemporary societies 32 (2013): 1.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The social contract. Open Road Media, 2016. 1.
Shaw, William H. "Justice, rights, and rules in Mill’s utilitarianism." Mill on Justice. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2012. 47-69.
Thompson, Dennis F. John Stuart Mill and representative government. Princeton University Press, 2015. 1.
