The term social justice is in most cases used in reference to an idea of a society that embraces the principles of equality as well as solidarity. It is an idea of a society in which human rights are understood and valued while the dignity of each individual is recognized. As such it is a concept whose basis is on human rights, equality as well as economic egalitarianism. Justice is perceived as a concept of moral rightness based on considerations of ethics, rationality, natural law, law, religion, as well as equality. According to Plato justice can be viewed as the quality of the soul in the sense that an individual set aside their irrational desire of exploring each pleasure to gain a selfish satisfaction and accommodate themselves in the discharging a function that brings about general benefits. Based on Plato’s rationale of the concept of justice the underlying argument that determines the just or unjust nature of an action is the implication that the act has on a general basis. This is to imply that a just action can be viewed as one whose benefits accrue on a general basis while an unjust action is understood as one whose benefits are influenced by selfish satisfaction. The argument present by Plato in reference to unjust laws is that they ought to be maintained. The rationale behind this is the fact that ones living within the jurisdiction of the laws implies acceptance to obey the law (Woozley, 1979).
Civil disobedience is perceived as the active and professed refusal to obey the laws of a government. However, according to Thoreau, civil disobedience can be understood to refer to a situation in which the people do not allow the government to overrule their consciences. This argument is based on the fact that the people are charged with the duty of preventing such acquiescence which enable’s the government to make the people agents of injustice. The argument presented by Thoreau is based on the understanding that governments are more harmful than helpful. This is draws on the fact that governments are made by the virtue of majorities which does not necessarily imply that the government formed gains virtues of wisdom as well as justice. This has the implication that each individual is obliged to doing what they think is right. As such this argument creates the understanding that a law can be violated in the event that it is unjust and against ones conscience (Maynard, 2005).
King had been accused of taking part in non-violent protests that were against racial segregation by the government as well as downtown retailers. In this regard the government was unjust in the sense that its actions were driven by the self satisfaction of their needs. In this regard it can be argued that King was just in participating in the protests on the basis of Thoreau’s explanation of civil disobedience. In both Thoreau’s case as well as King’s case the governments’ involved were unjust in the sense that their governance was self centered. However, King was on the receiving end on the unjust governance by the government thus justifying his participation in the civil disobedience. In this regard it can be deemed that King was more justified to take part in civil disobedience as compared to Thoreau. Though the governments are made up of the majorities, the judgment of ones conscience can not be considered as inferior. As such it is equally important for an individual to observe the laws as it is for him to observe what is right (Bates College, 2001).
References
Bates College. (2001). Letter from Birmingham jail: April 16, 1963. Retrieved February 15, 2011 from <http://abacus.bates.edu/admin/offices/dos/mlk/letter.html>
Maynard, W. (2005). Barksdale, Walden Pond: A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Woozley, A. (1979). Law and Obedience: The Arguments of Plato’s Crito. London: Duckworth.
