w, i.e. disobeying segregation laws and orders to not march. Most people are initially supportive of his argument that an unjust law is not a law he can or should obey. King's comment that "one has a moral responsibility to obey just laws...one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws" (Letter, p3) therefore appears to justify his actions. However, a rational analysis makes apparent several difficulties associated with this argument.
             Claiming that there is a moral responsibility to obey just laws actually forces a person to question the purpose of laws in general. King's statement that:
             "The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws:just and unjust. I would be the [ first] to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws"
             has two main problems associated with it. If a person takes the position that she will only obey "just" laws conforming to her moral code, then as Murphy and Coleman point out the law becomes accepted only in situations where it is least necessary. Thus a moral theory in and of itself does not provide a very good justification for obeying law since there is no reason to stipulate by law what the populace accepts as morally required. The other problem with this theory is that moral codes alone are not responsible for obeying the law. An obligation to do something can be generated by the act of creating an obligation (a promise) even though the content of that obligation may be morally questionable.
             Additionally, King's claim that unjust laws are not really laws is strongly criticized by positivist theorists. He defends his actions by stating "one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws... I would agree with St. Augustine that Œan unjust law is no law at all.'" To a positive theorist this is anathema for the reason that it forces natural law theory to be based either on dogma, i.e. religion, or on the subjective nature ...