Compare Plato's view of our obligations to the state in the Crito to Martin Luther King's view of out obligations to the state in “Letter from Birmingham Jail”. Are the two necessarily opposites or can they be consistent?
This paper will examine the duties we have to the state or governing body. Nearly every governing power structure expects a variety of duties to be performed by the people they are ruling. This concept of a duty is touched on in works both by Plato and by Martin Luther King Jr. This paper will compare the concept of citizen duties presented by both.
In the work of Plato, Socrates is found guilty of a crime and is due to be executed soon. Crito, a friend of Socrates, comes to him in prison and pleads that Socrates use the influences that Crito has to escape persecution and flee Athens. Socrates then goes on to explain to Crito how his sentence is something that Socrates must do to still be a good person. Crito complains that the decision of the court was not a correct one. However one argument Socrates makes is that two wrongs do not make a right. “Nor must one, when wronged, inflict wrong in return, as the majority believe, since one must never do wrong.” (49.C.) Socrates would contend that the government is much like a parent and that as a citizen, one would have duties to that government. One duty would be to follow the laws and judgments of the government. It is clear that Socrates finds that to rebel against the court somewhat regardless would be doing a wrong, and that even if the case be that the court is committing the first wrong, it holds that two wrongs fail to make a right.
I find that on the surface, Martin Luther Kings Jr. disagrees with the ideas made by Plato. The problem Martin Luther King Jr. faces is that the government he is dealing with does not properly take care of its citizen. Martin Luther King Jr. would contest that it is the government that is doing the wrong and that by acting out in protest to try to mend the government, the protesters are then doing right. For Martin Luther King Jr. it is the duty of the citizen to keep the government in a proper check, and when that government is not upholding the standards for which it stand, it is the duty of its people to correct the government.
On the surface, the points made by Martin Luther King Jr. and the ones made by Socrates would seem to be diametrically opposed. However, upon further review one will come to understand that these two men were not in the same situation. It seems that while both men are being imprisoned that they would share some type of scenario, but that is quite untrue. Socrates is fighting for doing the right thing while still contesting that his government has not failed him. Very much on the other hand, we find that Martin Luther King Jr. understands that it is the failing of the government that needs to be corrected. I think that both of these brilliant men would come very close to a consensus if they were in identical situations but that is not the case here. These two men agree that it is the duty of the citizen to uphold the laws of the government and to expect that the government is performing its duty to protect the rights of its citizen.
The primary disagreement that is present is that these two men are not on the same side of the government. Socrates understands that his government has performed its duty and it is only just for Socrates to follow suit. Martin Luther King Jr., however, understand that the failure of the government spurs its citizen to act on the duty to reform the government until it is fulfilling the duty that it has been giver.
