A Critique of Martin Luther King, Jr.‘ Natural Law Theory

Comp. 102
Date: 6/5/2013

Paradoxically, Martin Luther King, Jr., “Letter from the Birmingham City Jail,” Initially uses classical natural law theory to define his actions, but immediately thereafter contradicts a fundamental tenet of this theory and relies on a “weaker” version of natural law. In doing so, King must attempt to formulate a theory which justifies his illegal actions in view of his moral obligation to obey the law. King’s failure to distinguish between legal obligations and moral obligations yields a logical paradox in his final formation of natural law theory. However, Kings theory need not be completely rejected if his argument is slightly modified to reject the moral obligation to obey laws. King initially uses classical natural law theory as his rational basis to defend his actions. This theory has two main point of views, the first being,” Moral Validity; is a logically necessary condition for legal validity an unjust or immoral law being no law at all” followed by, “The moral order is part of the natural order moral duties being in some sense “read off ” from essences of purpose fixed (perhaps by God) in nature.” According to this theory, morality law, but law that equals morality by definition. Thus for King to use this theory, two requirements are implicit. He must assert that an unjust law is not really a law, and he must provide a moral theory to distinguish just and unjust laws. King first quotes St. Augustine, “an unjust law is no law at all,” to emphasize his agreement with the first claim. He then includes the “law of God” as his moral theory to provide the framework upon which to judge the law.

His argument using classical natural law theory at first seems to be a valid and necessary defense for breaking the law, disobeying segregation laws