Martin Luther King Jr. has become one of history’s biggest civil rights activists who has completely changed the world we currently live in today. In his Letter from Birmingham Jail, King talks about the difference between moral and immoral laws. King tries to explain that justice has a sense of morality by saying, “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”. Since King was a minister of the church, he constantly refers back to the bible to look for support for justice and morality, yet there is no prevalent religious issue. When looking at justice and morality, it is easy to relate the two as being similarly connected, but they are not the same.
In paragraph 16, King goes into detail and explains the difference between an unjust and just law. He also explains how one determines whether the law is just or unjust. When explaining the difference between the two laws he states, “ 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”. When relating to the bible, King talks about how the early Christians were willing to face hungry lions and the pain of chopping blocks instead of facing certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire which made them out casters. While he was a minister of the church and often relates back to religious examples, King is more concerned about how morality and justice stand together. What King also looks at is that unjust laws are usually put against the minority which is compelled to obey but it is not binding on itself. King explains it as, “difference made legal.” When comparing morality and justice, they are easy to relate to each other but are not the same. Often times people see morality and justice the same because when justice is served, the morality of the served justice among people seems to be the ‘correct’ way people think in society. To explain how they are not necessarily the same, the issue of physician assisted suicide (PAS) comes into mind.
While most people believe the correct moral decision is allowed to the individual because they believe they can do whatever they want with their body, people can identify the justice that may not be served for close friends and family. Justice is not served because a lot of the time families and friends may feel left out of the decision of their loved one who may be dying or suffering of an illness. King explains that, “sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest”. While thinking in terms of morality, people should be able to do what they want with their bodies. And while it may be ‘unjust’ to keep it illegal in some states, families and friends may feel it is unjust to make a literal life changing decision without them.
A lot has changed over time thanks to Martin Luther King Jr., yet it is important to know that while justice and morality mostly go hand in hand, there is also an understanding of how they are not the same thing. People believe that when justice is served, the morality of the decision is correct. However, justice has a small sliver that may have instances where it’s unjust such as physician assisted suicide. And while King refers to God many times, he simply uses it as an argument to strengthen the difference between unjust and just laws. Yet it is important to keep in mind that King has, “tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends”.
