Civil Disobedience and Unjust Laws: Plato, Thoreau, and King

Introduction: The Case Against Blind Obedience

"That government is best which governs least" (Thoreau). The opening line of Civil Disobedience testifies to the importance of individual enlightenment over blind conformity. Government should ideally be by the people and for the people, yet laws are often arbitrary and reflect outmoded social norms. In Crito, Plato foresees centuries of government oppression through unjust laws. Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela are both figureheads of civil disobedience because they followed the rational and sound examples set by Plato and Thoreau. Like Socrates in Crito, Martin Luther King Jr. understood that anarchy is not the solution to overturning unjust laws. No individual should obey an unjust law. The intelligent individual promotes democratic ideals and self-empowerment rather than acting as a martyr. In fact, obeying an unjust law is akin to perpetuating injustice. It is the duty of every conscious citizen, intent on promoting the good life, to disobey unjust laws and work toward the evolution of a more perfect society.

Crito and the Moral Obligation to Resist Unjust Laws

In Plato's Crito, the title character boldly persuades Socrates to escape from prison. The dynamic between Crito and Socrates illustrates the central argument of whether or not to obey unjust laws. Unjust laws are by definition unworthy of respect. For example, interracial marriage was once a crime in the United States. It was a moral obligation of interracial couples to purposely disobey that law in order to demonstrate that the government was wrong to legislate prejudice. Henry David Thoreau would agree: the government should never pass laws that infringe on the rights of others. Breaking such laws is an act of civil disobedience. Just as Socrates willingly endured a prison term, so too did Nelson Mandela and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Their personal sacrifice helped pave the way for a more just society.