Thomas Hobbes and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: A Comparative Study
In class we have struggled to define the term “justice” so that it illuminates the way in which people in a society not only understand what “justice” is, but how people then live in society practicing and adhering to this idea. The notion of justice that I will be examining comes from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”. The idea of a just society, I contend, is essentially one where people, both those who have been historically oppressed and those who are privileged, have their personhood recognized under a common political system. A just society is not a utopian society in which all people live in perfect harmony, not once slighted or oppressed by common laws; instead a just society is one where the political system in place does not create or enforce laws that denigrate and persecute the humanity of its populace. A just society as King articulates is one that uplifts the humanity and character of its people. However, the creation of a just society is not solely the responsibility of the state. It is in the hands of the populace to determine their moral responsibility and subsequently wrestle, struggle, and ultimately disobey unjust laws as a way to shed light and garner the attention of the state.
Where King contends that the state is not always just and therefore is not always capable of creating a just society, Thomas Hobbes disagrees. Hobbes theorizes that the “state of nature” of human beings would be one without social order, in the absence of the Leviathan, the state. He argues that men create and sign a social contract that forfeits their rights to discern what constitutes what is just or unjust. Instead, every law, policy, or creed proposed by the state is inherently just because the state is always caters to the preservation and protection of its subjects. Although Thomas Hobbes’ methods of addressing just and unjust laws predates Martin Luther King, Jr’s, I will be using their works in the same thread of thought to articulate what a just society may look like under the body politic. Most importantly, I champion King’s notion of collective political dissent as a way of refuting Hobbes’ notion of an absolute state. In understanding how King philosophizes justice and what justice may look like in a society, I aim to bring the texts of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Thomas Hobbes into conversation with the abiding concerns of political theory: the conceptualization of creating and maintaining a just society amidst state subjugation.
On April 12, 1963, Dr. Martin Luther king, Jr. wrote “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” while he was in solitary confinement. While the motivation for this letter was in large part to refute the legitimacy of segregation in the U.S., his statement has become a source of understanding justice not only in regards to segregation but universally. For King, a just law is any “man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God”. I suggest that King believes that justice, whether it be through the man made code of law or the moral law of God must “uplifts human personality”. If a just law uplifts the humanity of men, then to King, an unjust law is one that “degrades human personality” in a way that is disharmonious and oppressive towards men. The distinction between “just and unjust” laws is that just laws acknowledge the salience of human life and aim to uplift the personhood of men. Injustice in any form degrades the salience of human life as inconsequential and expendable. This is why King champions nonviolent direct action in the face of injustice, for unjust laws from the state should not be revered and followed if they degrade the human spirit. Instead, King believes that everyone has both a “legal” and “moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws” as they would to follow just laws.
King champions civil disobedience, in the form of sit-ins, protests, and demonstrations, as a means of pursuing justice. He calls upon the populace to rage against segregation through nonviolent direct action, for the sight of civil disobedience is the only recourse that vehemently opposes the actions of the state, which not only denies their speech but also infringes upon their being through segregation. The very act of disobedience in the face of the state oppression reveals the people’s discontent for injustice. King’s approach to involve the people in determining just and unjust laws is in direct opposition to Hobbes’s key philosophy that the state, regardless of the laws it enacts, is always veered towards the good of its people. Hobbes champions the notion that the idea of justice is negligible under the state. Because the objective of the state is to preserve its subjects, the opinion of the masses is unimportant. When subjects relinquish their power to have a stake in their own protection, they inherently give the state absolute power through governmental forces to construct justice in any way it sees fit. For Hobbes believes that “there are no grounds, nor principles of reason, to sustain those essential rights which make sovereignty absolute”. There is no premise for the populace to mull over the notion of justice, since all laws created and reinforced by the state are by nature just. However, Hobbes fails to create a nuanced analysis of society under the rule of an absolute power — he does not properly address how public dissent can cause political discourse around the notion of justice. Unlike Hobbes, King insists that the populace will never submit and consensually give up its rights solely to the jurisdiction of the state. Where Hobbes believes that the threat of violence will quell civil disobedience and veer the populace towards order and consent under the law, King realizes that men are not easily quelled or silenced by the threat of violence, even if it is state enforced. King articulates that unjust laws punish not only the segregated, since they are victim of constant discrimination and persecution but also the segregator, since they are given a “false sense of superiority”. Instead King advocates for civil disobedience as it is creates civic tension so that men can “rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood”. For when the state denies all Black persons the ability to be equal under law to their White counterparts, King believes there is cause for demonstrations, especially when the city itself, “refused to engage in good-faith negotiations” with Black civil rights leaders. However Hobbes counters King that the masses actually do not have the right to determine laws, for it is not up to the jurisdiction of men to determine the moral nature of laws. He advocates for power and rule because the prosperity of the state comes from the “obedience and concord of the subjects: nor do the people flourish in a monarchy because one man has the right to rule them, but because they obey him”.
Although dissent under the state is often times seen as anarchy, Dr. King reveals a greater respect for the authority and power of the state, when “openly, lovingly, and willingly accepts the penalty”. That King willingly suffers for his beliefs reveals how deeply he believes that segregation is unjust. King’s views stray from Hobbes in that King believes that society must confront the worst parts of itself but not with the intent of harming itself. King’s philosophy always assumes that people are inherently good and aim for the betterment of society, not its downfall. And yet the fact that “tension” and “crisis” are prerequisites to change also implies that people in society cannot better themselves naturally. Living under the state becomes difficult when everyone is not seen equal; however, King believes that humans must be directed to new methods that account for their goodness through recourse, direction, and tension. He notes that there is no guarantee that a government will produce just laws, yet he asserts that there is moral duty to oppose unfair legislation. Thus, for people to lead ethically just lives, they must be able to engage in civil disobedience to denounce unjust laws.
The resources of King and Hobbes help piece together a powerful argument against state sanctioned segregation, racism, and essentially all practices that thwart the natural abilities of persons to grow together socially through political discourse and collective action. These arguments articulate that the existence of a just society solely depends on the universal right that all people have to evaluate the ethical implications of laws.
