- According to Martin Luther King Jr., what distinguishes just from unjust laws is that the former are in agreement with the moral or natural law. He defines a just law as one that squares with the moral law or the law of God, which uplifts human personality and dignity. A just law uplifts human personality and dignity. Conversely, an unjust law is one that is in disaccord with moral law. King relates that unjust laws debase human personality by forcing segregation or making one give up the basic rights that should be their birthright, and therefore could not mirror in itself the worthiness of individuals as children of God. He goes on to refer to segregation laws: “For instance, segregation distinctively deploys an unjust operation by burdening African Americans but also twisting the soul of both the oppressor and the oppressed.”. King elaborates on this by referring to the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, where “an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.” He also declares, any law which “degrades human personality” is unjust and inversely laws that “uplift human personality” are just. Ultimately, King feels that one has the moral obligation to disobey unjust laws for justice and dignity of humankind.
- I really think that the difference between just and unjust laws is terribly important. It not only demonstrates a way in which every human being conducts his life but also how societies are supposed to move forward and the entire scheme of morality upon which one bases his actions. Once an individual understands the difference, he finds himself compelled to investigate the law- rather, not just follow it- question whether it conforms to the fundamental principles of fairness, equality, and respect for human dignity. On a personal level, this distinction can radically change how I approach situations involving authority, power, and justice. If I recognize a law as unjust, I’m more likely to feel a moral obligation to resist or challenge it, rather than simply conforming to it out of convenience or fear of punishment. For instance, people like Martin Luther King Jr. did not view the set of laws that supported segregation as binding during the civil rights movement; they comprehended them as oppressive and immoral, and their non-compliance with those laws became a means of fighting for justice. This is the kind of distinction that, at the level of society, may cause movement. When a society begins to question whether their laws are just-be it slavery, segregation, or more current issues such as police brutality or voting rights-then perhaps there is an opportunity for reform and progress. These movements in thought affect the politics. Laws and policies based on injustice can only be challenged when it is recognized that they infringe fundamental ethical principles. Historically, movements for civil rights, gender equality, and the rights of sexual minorities prove that when enough people recognize a law as unjust, they can unite to change it. So yes, I really do think that the way in which we see and judge laws makes a big difference in daily life and throughout history. It is one of the ways in which people and society can try to move toward a more just and fair world, and it’s essential for the health of any democracy that laws governing us be able to be questioned.
- Here are two examples of an unjust and just law in the US today: Unjust Law: Voter ID Laws
Many states have implemented laws requiring photo identification for each voter prior to voting. Though proponents argue these bills prevent voter fraud, opponents claim this burdens the minority groups, especially the low-income, the elderly, and people of color, who are not as likely to have the identification in the first place.
This is an unjust law according to MLK’s definition, as it “degrades human personality” through the disfranchisement of people based on their socioeconomic status or race. It puts up barriers to the exercise of a fundamental right-the right to vote-and thus keeps alive inequality in the sense that it affects disproportionately certain groups. This law is not in conformity with the moral law of equality and the right to participate in the democratic process and is, therefore, unjust.
Just Law: Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage – Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015
An example of a just law, according to MLK’s criteria, would be the legalization of same-sex marriage across the U.S. through the Obergefell v. Hodges decision. The dignity of individuals is asserted in this law by acknowledging that same-sex couples have a right to marry, hence upholding the moral principle of equality. It “uplifts human personality” as it grants equal legal rights and protection to all citizens regardless of their sexual orientation.
This is the just law for MLK because it goes in accordance with the moral law and human dignity: respecting the autonomy, rights, and love of same-sex couples, as it does for heterosexual couples. It works to eliminate discrimination and recognizes that all, regardless of whom they love, have the right to make a legal partnership and family.
In other words, taking up MLK’s distinction, the Voter ID law is unjust in that it disenfranchises people and perpetuates inequality, while the same-sex marriage law is just in that it upholds equal rights and dignity for all people.
