Aquinas's Theory of Law and King's Letter From Birmingham Jail
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.
- Introduction: Overview of Aquinas, King, and their shared concern with just and unjust laws
- Aquinas's Four Types of Law: Explanation of eternal, natural, human, and Divine law
- Just and Unjust Laws: Aquinas as a Framework for King: How Aquinas's framework supports King's civil rights arguments
- King's Critique of Unjust Laws: King's distinction between just and unjust laws in practice
- Law, Society, and Moral Judgment: Synthesis of both thinkers on lawmaking and moral responsibility
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper draws a clear and direct connection between two distinct thinkers across different historical periods, showing how Aquinas's philosophical framework anticipates and supports King's practical moral arguments.
- It uses direct quotations from both Aquinas and King to anchor its claims, grounding the comparative analysis in primary sources.
- The argument builds logically from defining Aquinas's types of law to applying that framework to the specific historical context of the Civil Rights movement.
Key academic technique demonstrated
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.
Structure breakdown
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.
Introduction
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's Four Types of Law
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.
Just and Unjust Laws: Aquinas as a Framework for King
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.
References
Aquinas, St. Thomas. The Summa Theologica. Benziger Bros. edition, 1947.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.