Comparison of Political Views: George Wallace vs Martin Luther King Jr.

Running head: LEGAL PHILOSOPHY
Legal Philosophy
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1LEGAL PHILOSOPHY
Introduction
George Wallace was one of the most notoriously racist of politicians in the history of
America. He is particularly well known for the inaugural address that he delivered in 1963,
before the American public where he spoke about the need for segregation of white
Americans from the African American people, and challenged the attempts that were made
by the federal government to bring about a reduction in racial segregation in public schools as
well as other institutions in Alabama (Zwiers, 2019). Martin Luther King Jr. was one of the
most outspoken and well known proponents of the civil rights movement in America. He
believed in advancing civil rights in America through civil disobedience and non-violence
and was much inspired by the ideals, values and the work of Mahatma Gandhi (Ling, 2015).
In this essay, a comparison is made between the opposing political views of Martin Luther
King Jr. and George Wallace by first talking about how the two would be likely to argue on
the legitimacy of positive law versus natural law, the duty of a subject to obey the law,
how the law should or should not be used to promote the common good, how the harm to
others principle can be used to justified both their views and the views of both Wallace and
Martin Luther King Jr. on the role that morality ought to play in determining the aims of
law.
When it comes to deciding on the legitimacy of positive law versus natural law, a
person like George Wallace would argue that it is positive law that should be used to govern
the American people, given that positive law is written law, it is documented on paper and
relies entirely on political forces for its power and implementation (D’Entreves, 2017).
Natural law is unwritten law and it is based on ethics and morality. Given that George
Wallace was a man who was a white supremacist, it is more than evident that he would
require the political legitimacy of positive law as written down and enforced by powerful and

2LEGAL PHILOSOPHY
racist white American politicians in order to implement his goal of racial segregation in the
country of America. He would definitely rely on positive law to put down on paper the need
to segregate black America people from the white Americans and implement this law across
the length and breadth of America. Martin Luther King, given that he was a proponent of the
civil rights movement in America, given that he himself was a black man and given that he
was a person who ardently believed in and supported the rights of black and white Americans
equally, is a person who would make use of the natural law rather than the positive law to
enforce his beliefs and views on politics (Drahos, 2016). This is because Martin Luther King
Jr. stood for everything that was right, moral and ethical, so it is expected that he would
prefer the legitimacy accorded by natural law to get his views across to the American public
and have these implemented as well. Of course it is important to remember that Martin
Luther King Jr. would need to rely on positive law as well in order to make sure that the
policies that he envisages to ensure the civil rights of American people actually get
implemented (Ling, 2015).
The duty to obey the law as advocated by a liberal democratic state is one that is
grounded in the notion of fair play. All people who live in a liberal democratic state are duty
bound to obey the law because it is the right thing to do (Pound & De-Rosa, 2017). A racist
American like George Wallace would use the ethical duty to obey the law to convince the
American people that positive laws which are based on racial segregation are those that must
be adhered to, even if they dislike the law and what it entails. George Wallace would
definitely use positive law and the duty to obey the law in order to impose his political views
and political desires upon the American people, telling them that they have no choice but to
obey the law that advocates racial segregation very simply because it is the duty of every
American to obey the law, and positive law as laid down by the powers that be, at that
(Zwiers, 2019). Martin Luther King Jr. would use the compulsion to obey the law or the duty