This paper examines the relationship between St. Thomas Aquinas's framework of law and Martin Luther King Jr.'s arguments in "Letter From a Birmingham Jail." Aquinas divided law into four types — eternal, natural, human, and Divine — each carrying distinct characteristics. The paper argues that Aquinas's hierarchy provides a strong philosophical foundation for King's claim that humans can recognize unjust laws without deferring to majority rule. It explores how the Civil Rights movement's opposition to segregation laws aligns with Aquinas's recognition that not all human laws reflect Divine or natural law, and considers what both thinkers reveal about the moral responsibilities of citizens confronted with unjust legislation.
This study guide is drawn from PaperDue's library of 130,000+ paper examples across 47 subjects.
The paper demonstrates comparative philosophical analysis — taking two thinkers separated by centuries and identifying the conceptual links between their ideas about law and justice. Rather than treating each writer in isolation, the author shows how Aquinas's theoretical categories (eternal, natural, human, and Divine law) provide concrete criteria King uses implicitly to distinguish just from unjust laws.
The paper opens by introducing both thinkers and the central comparison. It then explains Aquinas's four-part theory of law before showing how that theory supports King's claims about unjust laws and the Civil Rights movement. A focused section addresses what King meant by grounding justice outside majority rule, and the conclusion synthesizes both perspectives into a broader reflection on lawmaking and moral responsibility.
This paper examines Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter From a Birmingham Jail alongside St. Thomas Aquinas's views on law, with particular attention to the structure of law as Aquinas conceived it. Aquinas divided law into four specific types, yet both men agree that laws can be either just or unjust. Both thinkers address the nature of law and when it is morally permissible — or even obligatory — to refuse compliance with it, and each holds a distinct philosophy about when citizens should follow laws and when they should not.
Aquinas believed there were four basic types of law: (1) eternal law, (2) natural law, (3) human law, and (4) Divine law. Each type carried certain characteristics and responsibilities, and each could be interpreted differently. His concept of eternal law is bound up with Divine law, and he argues that because of Divine Reason, a law can indeed be eternal. Natural law, in his view, is a result of Divine law, and it is purely rational and natural for humans to be subject to it. He writes, "It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature's participation of the eternal law" (Aquinas). He also believed that human beings, being reasoning creatures, created certain human laws, and that Divine law emerged from humanity's relationship with God and the creation of the universe.
Aquinas's account of the ordering of laws provides a strong framework for King's claim that humans can recognize the justice or injustice of a law without deferring to majority rule. Aquinas writes, "Nor is it necessary for every measure to be altogether unerring and certain, but according as it is possible in its own particular genus" (Aquinas). That statement allows for a margin of error in human lawmaking, and in King's view, the unjust laws of his era represented exactly such errors — errors it was his moral duty to identify and refuse to follow.
King's clearest examples are the laws that existed before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which produced intense racial tension throughout the United States. African Americans were segregated and treated unequally under these laws, and it was in direct opposition to them that the Civil Rights movement arose. Not all laws are just, and Aquinas recognizes this openly. It seems reasonable to conclude that, had Aquinas lived in the modern era, he would likely have sided with King and his nonviolent opposition to laws that were neither just nor Divine in character. King and his followers did not accept majority rule; they spoke out against it and demanded change. That is precisely how unjust laws are transformed — through persistent, principled opposition.
King's argument is that unjust laws exist and that they are not rooted in natural or eternal law, because they are unnatural and have no connection to Divine law, which governs the eternal order. The laws King was protesting had nothing to do with what was right or natural. They were based on hatred, ignorance, and bigotry — qualities that have no legitimate place in lawmaking, especially when the laws in question affect so many people. Just laws are supportable and manageable, while unjust laws are not. Just laws can be enforced with moral authority, while unjust laws generate resistance precisely because that authority is absent. King understood this clearly, and he recognized that the distinction between just and unjust laws was not abstract — it was immediate and concrete.
You’re 78% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.