The world :: essays research papers fc

This paper is about the world, but Ive never written it.     ------------------------------------------------------------------------Editing ResourcesOther ResourcesHosted by match Ne tworks      ------------------------------------------------------------------------     ------------------------------------------------------------------------A critical review of Martin Luther fagot, Jr.s Version of Natural Law TheoryParadoxically, Martin Luther King, Jr., in his "Letter from Birmingham City Jail," initially uses serious music natural constabulary theory to oblige his actions, but in a flash thereafter contradicts a fundamental tenet of this theory and relies on a "weaker" version of natural law. In doing so, King essential enterprise to formulate a theory which justifies his illegal actions in view of his moral obligation to obey the law. Kings failure to distinguish between legal obligations and mo ral obligations yields a logical enigma in his final formulation of natural law theory. However, Kings theory need not be completely worsened if his argument is about modified to reject the moral obligation to obey laws. King initially uses classical natural law theory as his rational basis to stand for his actions. This theory has two main component claims according to Murphy and Coleman (Sourcebook, I-35), the counterbalance beingness, "Moral validity is a logically necessary condition for legal validity- an foul or dissolute law being no law at all" followed by, "The moral order is a part of the natural order- moral duties being in about sense "read off" from essences or purposes fixed (perhaps by God) in nature." According to this theory, morality law, but law = 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 dist inguish just and unjust laws. King first quotes St. Augustine, "an unjust law is no law at all," to underline 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, i.e. disobeying segregation laws and orders to not march. Most people are initially supportive of his argument that an unjust law is not a law he can or should obey. Kings comment that "one has a moral certificate of indebtedness to obey just laws...one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws" (Letter, p3) therefore appears to justify his actions. However, a rational analysis makes manifest several difficulties associated with this argument.The world essays research papers fc This paper is about the world, but Ive never written it.     ------------------- -----------------------------------------------------Editing ResourcesOther ResourcesHosted by pair Networks      ------------------------------------------------------------------------     ------------------------------------------------------------------------A Critique of Martin Luther King, Jr.s Version of Natural Law TheoryParadoxically, Martin Luther King, Jr., in his "Letter from Birmingham City Jail," initially uses classical natural law theory to defend 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. Kings failure to distinguish between legal obligations and moral obligations yields a logical paradox in his final formulation of natural law theory. However, Kings theory need not be completely reje cted 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 component claims according to Murphy and Coleman (Sourcebook, I-35), 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 a part of the natural order- moral duties being in some sense "read off" from essences or purposes fixed (perhaps by God) in nature." According to this theory, morality law, but law = 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 the n 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, i.e. disobeying segregation laws and orders to not march. Most people are initially supportive of his argument that an unjust law is not a law he can or should obey. Kings comment that "one has a moral responsibility to obey just laws...one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws" (Letter, p3) therefore appears to justify his actions. However, a rational analysis makes apparent several difficulties associated with this argument.