\documentstyle[doublespace]{article}
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0in}
\setlength{\evensidemargin}{-0in}
\setlength{\textwidth}{6.5in}
\setlength{\topmargin}{-.5in}
\setlength{\textheight}{9in}
\title{Philosophy and Public Affairs, Paper \#5}
\author{Greg Hudson}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{center}
Thesis: King's reply to Waldman's claim would be unconvincing because
he would base his reply on a distinction between just and unjust laws,
but he does not satisfactorially state how we should make this
distinction.
\end{center}
\bigskip
In this paper, I will examine King's reply to objections of the type
which Waldam raised against civil disobedience: that no one should
engage in it because it is illegal.  I will show why I find some key
aspects of this reply unconvincing.

Waldham's argument is that civil disobedience must be condemned
because it is illegal; what is illegal must be condemned, in turn,
because the preservation of our society rests upon respect for our
laws, and because tolerance of lawbreaking would lead to anarchy and
social collapse.\footnote{Louis Waldman, ``Civil Rights---Yes, Civil
Disobedience---No'', {\em Civil Disobedience}, Hugo Bedeau, ed.,
Pegasus: New York, 1969, p. 107}

King would respond that our society rests upon respect for just laws,
not on all laws, that positive stability is to be found in compliance
with just laws and not with unjust laws, and that civil disobedience
cannot bring about social collapse, because civil disobedience is
neither casual nor rebellious.

King appeals to Saint Augustine when he claims that, ``{}`An unjust
law is no law at all'{}''\footnote{Martin Luther King Jr., ``Letter
from Birmingham Jail'', {\em Civil Disobedience}, Hugo Bedeau, ed.,
Pegasus: New York, 1969, p. 77}.  In this way he seeks to explain why
we must obey some laws but may disobey ``unjust'' laws under some
circumstances.

What is an ``unjust'' law?  King first defines it in a general sense,
as ``a code that is out of harmony with the moral law''\footnote{King,
p. 77}.  This is very abstract, and doesn't tell us how to decide
which laws are unjust.  King provides some concrete examples of unjust
laws, but as Waldman points out, these examples can lead to somewhat
ludicrous conclusions.  For instance, King states that a law is unjust
if it applies to a group which had no say in its formation because
that group cannot vote, but from this we might say that all laws
applying to people below voting age are unjust\footnote{Waldman, p.
108}.  The issues are more complex than King seems to admit, and
therefore his attempt at drawing a distinction between just and unjust
laws is unsatisfactory.  This leaves him open to Waldman's criticism
that King merely provides ``an intellectual, religious, and moral
justification'' to his followers ``for doing illegal acts'' of
whatever nature they please\footnote{Waldman, p. 109}.

However, if we accept that we can make this distinction objectively,
then King provides a convincing argument against Waldman's claim that
civil disobedience destabilizes society through a disrespect for the
law.  King writes that the stability brought about by obeying the laws
of an unjust status quo is ``an obnoxious negative peace,'' inferior
to the ``substance-filled positive peace'' brought about by
justice\footnote{King, p. 80}.  This argument shows that if we can
draw an objective distinction between just and unjust laws, then we
{\em can} pick and choose.  I think Waldman would have a difficult
time maintaining that the security of our society rests upon obeying
laws that every rational person would accept as unjust.

Even without the ability to make an objective distinction between just
and unjust laws, King can convincingly reply to Waldman that his
approach to civil disobedience could not lead to anarchy and social
collapse.  King requires that breaking the law happen after an honest
attempt at negotiation\footnote{King, p. 73}, and he requires that
those practicing disobedience be willing to accept the
penalty\footnote{King, p. 78}.  The first condition requires that
people try as much as possible to correct injustices within the
framework of the legal system before disobeying the law.  The second
condition requires that rather than ignoring unjust laws, we must
acknowledge their impact on us, so that instead of rebelling against
unjust laws directly, we are bringing injustice to the attention of
society.

Although this last objection lessens the force of Waldman's argument,
the fundamental problem remains that King does not provide a
convincing distinction between just and unjust laws, and thus he is
still open to the criticism that people can use his logic as a
justification for breaking any law they honestly see as unjust.

\end{document}

