How Did Socrates Fight An Unjust Law

1. The similarity between the two lie in their belief to fight an unjust law through persuasion and to do so in a peaceful way. He also claims “In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices are alive, negotiation, self-purification and direct action,” and Socrates does participate in the several of these actions to further his point. They both agree that in cases of unjust law, they should fight it (despite that one was willing to go further than another) but still respect the laws in place. King knew that disobeying the law would only bring chaos and reflect badly on the idea of change they wanted and to get the desired results he needed to act in a way that would properly show what he desired.
King states that “An unjust law is a code that a majority inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself,” which in Socrates case is also true for the state is persecuting a small group of like-minded individuals. On the other hand, Socrates claims “…the majority could inflict the greatest evils, for they would then be capable of the greatest good… but they cannot do either,” which contradicts King’s stance of power/ structure of the majority. It can also be said that Socrates believes if one fails to argue their perspective on a matter they should stop fighting and accept their punishment/ fate while King upheld the ideal that if he fails in arguing the point to the opposing side then he should continue to debate the issue until it is recognized. In Kings interpretation/explanation of a nonviolent campaign he says that “direct action,” is necessary but Socrates does not hold this to be true since he believes he should not take action against the majority. After he utilizes the first three steps he neglects to make use of the forth and that is what makes their theories