Effective Argument

Who's he addressing?
Martin Luther King is officially addressing his fellow clergyman. However, it is clear that he also means this letter to address the world in general regarding the state of the world at this time.

What is he addressing?He is addressing claims and complaints that his protests were unwise and untimely. They felt that King did not give the new administration time to act. Some of the clergy also felt his actions were inappropriate and that he knew what he was doing would incite violence.

What is the tone he's using to address these people? The letter is both passionate but controlled. He speaks eloquently about these allegations and addresses all the complaints using ethos, pathos, and logos. His tone in general seems to be at times angry and at times disappointed, but his passion for what he is saying is undeniable. It is clear he is disgusted of the treatment of his people and he is demanding change. He is controlled in what he says and though he spends time discussing why he is upset and who he feels is responsible for the lack of change, his tone remains calm and he counteracts what could be a scathing letter with words of kindness. He is trying to bring out the compassion in people.

Taking all that together—audience, purpose, tone, context—what in it is effective? One thing that makes this letter so effective is how easy it is to understand. King makes himself both relatable and understandable. The letter could be just as easily understood today by the common man as it could back then.

It is also very effective how he takes each point that is made to critique his action and breaks down his reasoning. He reminds the clergy that though they show they deplore the actions taken in Birmingham, they have not shown similar emotion for the things that brought about the demonstrations. He makes his point undeniable when he says, “I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes.”

He reminds the clergy of why he is doing what he is doing. He says that though he is breaking a law, there is a difference between just an unjust laws and goes on to define what makes a law unjust. He uses a quote from the philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas: “An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.”

He is very logical in all of his arguments, showing that none of those involved was unaware of what they were getting themselves into. He reminds them that none of his actions have been paired with violence, and that the sit-in was extremely peaceable. He even waited until after the election to have this demonstration, as he did not want it to affect the results. He therefore shows that this decision was thoroughly thought through before anything was done and that they felt there was no other choice.

Another thing he does well is incite emotion from his fellow man. No matter what the race of the person, King almost demands emotion from them. The following section was full of content that was impossible not to empathise with:
“But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: ‘Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean…’”

What's ineffective? One thing that I could see as an issue for the clergy could possibly be his comparison of his actions to Jesus. He says that to say his sit-in could bring about violence would be like condemning Jesus because his actions resulted in the act of him being crucified. He also says he is an extremist like Jesus. I can see the reasons for the comparisons and that perhaps King felt that through this, he comparison could reach the clergy and make them see his logic.

Another thing he is trying to combat racism and the way his brothers and sisters are being treated which was completely terrible. But in referring to white moderates as members of the oppressor race, it seems this could be counterproductive. He feels that it is much more puzzling for someone who thinks this segregation is wrong to do nothing rather than just outright deny that it is wrong. I am not sure that I feel that this is the greater of two evils, but in doing nothing you do deny support to the cause. Your thoughts are pretty irrelevant if not voiced. This reminds me a great deal of groupthink. These moderates did not speak up for fear of backlash from the masses. King also admonishes religious leaders who ask that people follow the desegregation decree because it is law rather than because it is what is right. He also sees this as being passive. While focusing his critiques on those who agree with his cause could be seen as counter-productive, I feel that he was attempting to get some action out of them and make them see that their action was needed and it would take the voice of many to end the desegregation fully rather than just a few.

Where does he utilize logical fallacies?He does utilize logical fallacies, but they seem to have a place in the letter as they are paired with logical arguments. There were quite a few and he uses quite a few false analogies and hasty generalizations. Below are some that I noticed:

He compares his compulsion to carry the gospel of freedom beyond his home town to Paul and Jesus, “Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.”

This statement seemed somewhat like a slippery slope to me. It is saying that if in one area there is injustice, it will be everywhere. That whatever affects one affects all. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.”

This statement to me was kind of like an either-or fallacy. It did not specifically say either these demonstrations take place or we will never have freedom, but it does state that there was no alternative. An either-or fallacy states there are only two solutions in a complex situation that could have possible other alternatives. “It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.”

This can be seen as a false analogy, because it compares Socrates’ need for tension in the mind to creating tension in society to rid the world of racism: “Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.”

This is a hasty generalization: “We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” While it is true that freedom is not often voluntarily given, to say that it is never given freely is a hasty generalization.

This is another false analogy: “In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery?”

Where does he make sound logical arguments? He makes many sound logical arguments. His argument on which laws are lawful and which are unlawful was very logical, “How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.”

He is also very logical in expressing that saying that the demonstrations had just cause, and that critiquing them ignores the reasons the demonstrations took place: “You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes.”
He explains his nonviolent campaign and describes the decision to demonstrate. He explains that they chose their time carefully, waiting until after the election. He also explains they took workshops in nonviolence and asked themselves if they were ready accept the consequences of their actions before they acted. Their demonstration was thought out, logical, and calm. They made sure they were in a correct state of mind before they acted. “In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation.”

How does he balance the ethos, pathos and logos parts of his argument?His argument is very logical, and he made many logical arguments, including those mentioned in the previous question. His letter is logical and consistent and well thought out.

He also uses pathos in calling for justice. He reminds the people of all the atrocities that have been brought about by the segregation in Birmingham. He makes the reader feel sympathetic to the cause, which is very affective, as I mentioned earlier in this blog entry. He appeals to the masses and mentions that all races are involved and responsible for desegregation. There is a great deal of emotional appeal in this letter. “But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television…”

He brings to mind ethos quite often in bringing up Aquinus, Jefferson, Paul, Jesus, and many others. By playing off of their wide-spread popularity with the masses and the overall acceptance of people that they are good, he relates himself to them. He explains what is morally right and wrong. He shows he is credible by his tone and all that he says is reasonable to the common man. He establishes credibility by reminding the people that he is also clergy and they all should want the same thing. He states his beliefs and compares them to what the clergy believes, claiming that this is one and the same.

I believe we see a great deal of all three throughout the letters. I believe they are all necessary for a proper argument because they balance each other out. For example, if the letter was not logical, his emotional appeals would have been seen as mere emotion and been less effective. If the letter had not been logical, we may have questioned how ethical some of the things he said were. The use of all three of these together is what makes this letter so effective.

And, perhaps most importantly, how can you utilize any of this in your paper? It is definitely important to play on logos, pathos, and ethos in order to form a proper argument. I will make sure I incorporate that into my paper. I also see that there is a place for logical fallacies from time to time if they are backed with solid arguments and explanations. It feels as though King intentionally included them to further a sense of urgency to his reader. King is also very organized in what he has to say, and thought his letter out carefully. This organization is important in keeping the reader on track about what he is trying to say.