Part 1

1. How does M.L. King argue that segregation laws are unjust?

M.L.K. uses the concepts found in natural law as grounds for his argument (“an unjust law is no law at all”) that segregation is morally wrong. Under this, all segregation laws are unjust since it legally and overtly enforces a social pyramid. By this, I mean that these laws enforce the notion of a greater and lesser race based upon skin color (“I am better than you cause I have a lighter skin tone,” and vice versa).These concepts are false and highly elitist as well at the empowerment the apparently give. There is nothing that can objectively place on race over another. Therefore Segregation is morally wrong and unjust.


2. Why, according to King, should we disobey unjust laws?

We as people have a moral responsibility to obey “just” laws. Since people have this responsibility, it also their moral obligation to disobey “unjust” laws. A problem that comes up with this type of logic would be determining what laws are unjust. The standards that dictate what is unjust seem to shift as quickly as the weather.  It seems as if people disobey laws if it is convenient for them.

3. How does Aquinas determine if a law is just or unjust?

Aquinas proposes that there are several levels of law; eternal law (highest form of law, god’s law), followed by natural law (determined by nature), and human law (laws made by humans, lowest form). Morality is based off of eternal law. If any human law (natural law couldn’t contrast eternal law since nature is solely based on God’s will), goes against eternal law, it is unjust

4. How would a Legal Positivist judge segregation laws?

This would depend on the date it was being asked. If it was during the time of segregation, then a legal positivist would judge the laws positively since it was recognized and created by a government body. If it was any time after, the opposite judgment would occur and the positivist would not agree with it since it was no longer recognized by a government body (exclude Mississippi, they’re just lazy.)

PART 2

If a law is unjust, it remains law at the end of the day until a governing body strikes the law off the books. Just or not it remains law. Skipping over the relativity of laws (is it unjust to pay more taxes GE? Yet, if we were in their position, we would feel just), MLK’s imprisonment does refute Augustine. He derives morality from divine law, and therefore it can’t be moral for someone to be imprisoned under MLK’s circumstances.  It isn’t natural law that dictates any race superior (since its not there it can’t be divine), it isn’t found anywhere except in human law. Human law has shown to be erroneous and morally unjust. Yet since these law are still in effect, unjust and all, it refutes Augustine’s assertion.