Socrates, Dietrich Bonhoeffer & Martin Luther King
Essay Preview: Socrates, Dietrich Bonhoeffer & Martin Luther King
Report this essay
Socrates, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Luther King were quite different types of people and one being from a very different time. However, they together shared something in common, and that was a pursuit for justice. These three men stood up for what they believed in and were each killed through their tries. Socrates and Bonhoeffer were put to death and Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. Each man questioned the laws that were in tact and tried to get others to question such things as they reached out to anyone and everyone who would listen. Socrates, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Luther King all dealt with injustice in a way hoping to prevent or stop it. Their struggle is recognized as highly honorable and their vision of how to treat unjust laws remains with us today.
Socrates was put on trial for his life after being charged with corrupting the youth of Athens and for not believing in the Gods of whom were approved by the state. Socrates often would often rock the boat by discussing status quo. He would produce questions, create debates and engage in arguments with others to prove his views about certain laws being unjust. Socrates however, did not believe in breaking the law, he often stood up and represented the laws through personification. “What complaint have you against us and the state, that you are trying to destroy us?” (Plato 50d) He made it clear that by living in a city where the laws have been there just as long if not longer than the person breaking them when it is convenient, would eventually lead to the society becoming an anarchy. Through one person disobeying the law it is unfair to those whom obey it. Eventually others will begin disobeying too. Doing what one wants when they wish to is not fair and it leads to chaos and destruction of both the city and the citys system. The effects could easily multiply and bestow a decline in law and order. In an extreme case scenario, it could lead to civil war.
Socrates understood that the laws of Athens were reflective of that of the divine laws. That means that the laws must be just. If there were ever a problem, then the problem would stand with the person rather than with the law itself. Socrates never acted out against the law. “One must never do injustice. Nor return injustice for injustice, as the multitude think, since one must never do injustice.” (Plato 27) He never would have directly committed a crime. “Then one ought not return injustice for injustice or do ill to any man, no matter what one may suffer at their hands.” (Plato 27) Socrates would not exchange the injustice of escape for the injustice of his death sentence, regardless
of what he would suffer. Socrates was demonstrating the uttermost respect for the law, and at the same time still showing it was wrong. He willingly took the punishment viewed as necessary, and in effect suffered for his cause.
“One may well ask: ÐHow can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others? The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust.” (King 84) Those were the words of the late Martin Luther King who believed that there are in fact both just laws and unjust laws. It is obvious that unjust laws can and have existed. A law is man made and nothing more. Any man in power and that has the ability to change the law or make new ones can and will in the future, just as in the past. Depending of how the person may feel about another person or certain type of person, that can be bestowed into the laws.
During the time of the Second World War, Germany had been under the control and power of Hitler. He butchered and murdered millions of Jewish men, women and children. However, nothing that Hitler had done was considered against the law, he made every bit of his actions legal. Despite how ethically wrong it was for Hitler to go through with what he did, it was completely legal in the aspects of man made laws. However, like Martin Luther King believed, not all laws are just laws. The Jewish massacre of World War II could easily be one of the greatest examples of what Martin Luther King meant by his belief.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer lived in Germany during the time Hitler was reigning through the lands. Unlike the uncountable number of Germans that fell for the delusive sense of protection under Hitlers movement, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was not one of them. He believed that mankind had come to an age of no longer needing religion. For Bonhoeffer, “the Christian is identified not by his beliefs, but by actions, by his participation in the suffering of God in the life of the world.” (Bonhoeffer 35) He believed even though others are suffering, everyone should suffer together to makes us stronger, the same way God suffered for all of us. Bonhoeffer believed freedom could be achieved through acting in any way necessary, even by doing what is wrong in order to steer off what is worse. Avoiding war by being unjust to a large number of people, and by that, neglecting to see that what he thinks is worse, may still be the better because, failing to see that evil can never be satiated.
Bonhoeffer generally agreed with King about the two types of laws. He understood that unjust laws create chaos in societies. The new laws made by the Nazi regime were corrupting mankind and destroying the human rights of the Jews. Bonhoeffer had not been in Germany for years but returned when he believed the country was in need of critical help. “Unless we have the courage to fight for a revival of wholesome reserve between man and man, we shall perish in an anarchy of human values.” (Bonhoeffer 35) He returned to Germany to prevail against Hitler. Bonhoeffer gathered as many as he could to help other countries resist Hitler. He was banned from preaching; then teaching; and then finally any sort of public speaking. During that time, Bonhoeffer worked closely with numerous opponents of Hitler. He knew by directly breaking a law it would not be as effective as a resistance of a number of people would be. Bonhoeffer joined a hidden group of high-ranked military officers and Military Intelligence, who wanted to bring down the National Socialist regime by killing Hitler. Bonhoeffer had the role of the church to take care of, national loyalty and his personal conscience. He was a peacekeeper during his time. However, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was put in jail for opposing Hitler, and before he was put to death he expressed his opinions about the laws and rulers of Germany through his writing. Bonhoeffer had a secretive approach about his efforts unlike Martin Luther King had with his.
Martin Luther King believed if one knows their opponent has a reason for doing what
they do then it is best to use a nonviolent approach. However, if the enemy has no conscience such as Hitler,