Analyze the statements of each speaker. What does each statement imply Essay

Analyze the statements of each speaker. What does each statement imply regarding their views on the following legal philosophica - Essay ExampleGeorge Wallace was the 45th governor of Alabama and he was strongly in favor of segregation laws. He held opposite opinions from Luther King Jr. on human rights and believed that it was right for white and alter men to be treated differently. His opinion on civil movements was also not pleasing for civil rights activist. He called for an end to these movements. Kings views on Legal Philosophical Issues Natural law is the law that is found on human inclination or nature (Rothbard, M. 2011). Positive laws are manmade laws that are based on the fact that human beings are not inherently moral or rational so laws are required to govern them. Martin Luther King considered internal law to be more legitimate than positive laws. King considered the positive laws of segregation to be incoherent with natural law of freedom and justice. He tell We c an never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating For Whites Only. (Luther King Jr.). Segregation was supported by law and King argued against it because he thought it was against the natural laws of freedom. Luther King Jr. was of the opinion of St. Augustine that unjust law is no law (MacDonald Jr. 2010). ... Law should be used to invoke the common good as argued by King. He believed that it was our duty to follow the just laws. Just laws promote the common good among wad by listening to the all groups of the society. He says in his speech Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit cartroad of racial justice (Luther King Jr.). So he argues that laws should be changed. When he argues that laws should be changed he must believe that laws can be used to promote common good of the people. Martin Luther King Jr. believed in the non violent ways of protest. He was insp ired by Gandhi and his philosophy of non violence. He believed that violence is not confirm even if it is done to achieve a just claim. He said specifically In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be abominable of wrongful deeds (Luther King Jr.). This clearly explains his non violent ideas. He strongly believed that harm done to people even in the course of protest for a just cause is not justified. The legal philosophy of King was to achieve the aims through peaceful protests and not physical violence. King viewed the character of familiarity to be great in determining aims of law. Autonomy was promised by the ancestors of America but this was not given to the black Americans. In his opinion aims of law were to promote autonomy but later on the society developed its own biases and prejudices. State intervention is argued by Stuart Mill but only in cases where a person inflicts harm or danger to the society (Dogan, A. 2006). King sees paternalism as undesirab le as it hinders in achieving the aim of law and that is to promote freedom. Morality plays a role in determining aims of law according to Luther King Jr. The aims