Leaders

Martin Luther King: A Religious Virtue Ethicist

When it comes to normative ethical theories, there are two main camps: consequentialist and deontological. Consequentialist theories, such as utilitarianism, focus on the outcomes of actions. The right thing to do is the action that will produce the most good or the least amount of harm. In contrast, deontological theories, such as Kantianism, focus on the intentions behind actions. The right thing to do is the action that upholds our duty, regardless of the consequences. Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses, but they are the most commonly-cited normative ethical theories. The other, lesser-cited normative ethical theory is virtue ethics.

What is Virtue Ethics

The origins of virtue ethics can be traced back to the ancient Greeks. Aristotle, in particular, developed a form of virtue ethics that emphasised the role of character in promoting moral behaviour. According to Aristotle, virtues are habits that enable us to act in accordance with our telos, or “purpose.” For example, the virtue of courage helps us to act bravely in the face of danger, while the virtue of temperance helps us to control our desires and appetites. By developing virtuous character traits, we can become better people and lead more fulfilling lives. The philosophy of virtue ethics remained popular for centuries, and was later revived by thinkers such as Alasdair MacIntyre and Bernard Williams. Today, it continues to be a major approach within moral philosophy.

Most religious leaders are deontological, meaning they believe that actions are right or wrong based on whether they adhere to a set of rules or principles. This perspective is often rooted in the belief that there is a higher power that has laid out these rules and that we must follow them in order to achieve salvation or enlightenment. This way of thinking places a strong emphasis on duty and obedience, and it often leads to religious leaders taking a very black-and-white view of right and wrong. While this perspective can be inflexible at times, it does provide a clear moral compass that can be helpful in guiding people’s actions. Additionally, deontological ethics often emphasise the importance of taking personal responsibility for one’s actions, which is something that most religious leaders can get behind.

Kingian Virtue Ethics

When most people think of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., they think of his work as a civil rights leader. But King was also a philosopher, and he based his civil rights work on philosophical principles. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Baptist minister, and he was heavily influenced by his religious beliefs, and he often drew upon Biblical themes in his speeches and writings. In his famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” for example, Dr. King invoked the story of the Good Samaritan to argue that people have a moral obligation to help those who are suffering. Religion also played a role in Dr. King’s commitment to nonviolent resistance; as a Christian, he believed that violence was contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Something that is particularly interesting about King’s philosophy is that his ethics and philosophy aren’t the biblically grounded duty-based deontological ethics we would expect from a religious leader, but they were influenced by virtue ethics, and centred around character development and the cultivation of good habits. According to virtue ethics, the goal of ethical behaviour is not simply to follow rules or achieve good outcomes, but to become a good person. This is the kind of person who has developed virtues like courage, compassion, and wisdom. For King, achieving racial justice was not just a matter of passing laws or changing social institutions; it was also about helping people to develop virtuous characters. By working to build virtuous character traits in others, King believed that he could help create a more just and compassionate society.

“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, we must 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”
King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail”

Kings virtue ethics present as a kind of secularised form of religious ethics— while the virtues we ought to aspire to might align with readings of religious texts and what the Bible suggests makes a good person, the qualities that King advocates can also be adopted whether you believe in or agree with Christianity.

What we can learn from Kingian Virtue Ethics

While discussions of how we ought to live morally are typically shaped by the two competing theories of consequentialism and deontology, with consequentialist theories focusing on the consequences of actions, and deontological theories focus on the duties and obligations that people have; it’s also important to consider how virtue ethics— which focuses on the character of the morally good person, rather than on the rightness or wrongness of specific actions— might influence our work as changemakers.

There are some key ways in which virtue ethics differs from consequentialist and deontological ethics. First, virtue ethics is not as concerned with rules and regulations as consequentialist and deontological theories are. Second, virtue ethics emphasises the importance of developing virtuous character traits, such as courage and compassion, rather than simply following rules. Finally, virtue ethics is often less concerned with specific actions than with the overall character of the person carrying out those actions. All three types of ethical theory have their own strengths and weaknesses, and there is no one “correct” ethical theory. Ultimately, it is up to each individual to decide which type of ethical theory makes the most sense to them.

Unlike other ethical theories, which focus on what we ought to do, virtue ethics focuses on what kind of people we ought to be. The central question for virtue ethicists is not “What should I do in this situation?” but “What kind of person should I be?” To answer this question, virtue ethicists look to the virtues, or good character traits, that are important for human flourishing. Examples of virtues include courage, compassion, and wisdom. One way to think about virtues is as habits of thought and action that enable us to achieve our goals in life. For example, a courageous person is not afraid to stand up for what she believes in, even in the face of danger. A compassionate person is someone who feels empathy for others and is motivated to help them. And a wise person is able to make sound decisions based on a deep understanding of the situation. Virtue ethics emphasises that developing virtuous character traits is essential for living a good life. Given the significant change that Martin Luther Kings’ work was able to influence for the civil rights movement, perhaps as contemporary changemakers we ought to consider the place of virtue in our movements.

“What is your life’s blueprint?” Life design according to Martin Luther King Jr

Martin Luther King, and his philosophy of non-violence is largely influenced by virtue ethics, a philosophical theory that emphasises the role of character and virtue in moral decision making. Virtue ethics is often contrasted with other ethical frameworks that focus on what actions are right or wrong. Instead, virtue ethics is concerned with how you live your life. The basic idea is that there are certain virtues that are essential to a good life, and that by developing these virtues, you will become a good person. This might sound like a simple task, but it’s actually quite difficult. Virtue ethics requires that you think about your life as a whole and strive to develop the virtues that are most important to you. It’s not enough to simply do the right thing in any given situation; you also need to have the right attitude and approach to life. Virtue ethics is about becoming the best person you can be, and that’s a lifelong journey.

Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “If you don’t have a blueprint for your life, you will become part of someone else’s.” This is an important statement that applies to everyone, no matter what age or stage of life they are in. A blueprint is a plan or a set of guidelines that helps you achieve your goals. It can be something as simple as a list of things you want to do before you die, or it can be a detailed plan of action for how you’re going to achieve your dreams. Either way, having a blueprint gives you a sense of direction and purpose. It helps you stay focused on what’s important, and it gives you something to look back on when you feel like you’re lost. In one of his speeches, King discusses with his young audience the importance of having a blueprint in life, and provides three key things that ought to make up our life’s blueprint.

“Now, each of you is in the process of building the structure of your lives. And the question is whether you have a proper, a solid and a sound blueprint, and I want to suggest some of the things that should be in your life’s blueprint…”

“A deep belief in your own dignity, your own worth, and your own-ness…

Don’t allow anybody to make you feel that you are nobody. Always feel that you count, always feel that you have worth and always feel that your life has ultimate significance.”

We all have moments in our lives where we feel good about ourselves and others where we don’t. When we feel good about ourselves, it shows in our behavior. We are confident, Fuller of energy and seem to attract more good things into our lives. On the other hand, when we don’t feel so good about ourselves, it’s hard to fake it. We may avoid people and opportunities, start to believe negative things about ourselves that aren’t true and end up feeling even worse. Why is self worth so important? Because it has a big impact on the quality of our lives. When we feel good about ourselves, we are more likely to take care of our health, be productive citizens and reach our goals. We also tend to be happier, have healthier relationships and be more resilient when bad things happen. So how do we make sure our self worth stays high? Here are a few ideas:

Find things you’re good at and do them often
Recognise your accomplishments, no matter how small
Spend time with people who make you feel good about yourself
Treat yourself with kindness and respect
Forgive yourself for your mistakes

“You must have as a basic principle, the determination to achieve excellence in your various fields of endeavour…

you’re gonna be deciding as the days and the years unfold. What you will do in life, what your life’s work will be. And once you discover what it will be set out to do it and to do it well. And I say to you, my young friends, that doors are opening to each of you, doors of opportunity are opening to each of you that were not open to your mothers and to your fathers and the great challenge facing. It’s to be ready to enter these doors as they open.”

There’s no denying that life can be tough. We all face challenges and obstacles, and sometimes it can feel like we’re just struggling to keep our heads above water. However, it’s important to remember that life is also a gift. It’s a precious opportunity to experience all the joy and beauty that the world has to offer. That’s why it’s so important to strive for excellence in everything we do. When we set our sights high and commit ourselves to excellence, we open up a world of possibilities. We give ourselves the chance to truly thrive and reach our full potential. Excellence is its own reward, but it also leads to a more fulfilling, happier life. So don’t be afraid to aim for the stars – excellence is within your reach.

“And finally, in your last blueprint must be a commitment to the eternal principles of beauty, love and justice.

Don’t allow anybody to pull you so low as to make you hate them. Don’t allow anybody to cause you to lose your self respect to the point. That you do not struggle for justice. However young you are, you have a responsibility to seek, to make your nation a better nation in which to live.

You have a responsibility to seek, to make life better for everybody. And so you must be involved in the struggle for. And justice now in this struggle for freedom, injustice, there are many constructive things that we all can do and that we all must do. And we must not give ourselves to those things, which will not solve our problems.”

Most of us want to live good lives. We want to be happy and have meaningful relationships. We want to do something that makes a difference. And part of living a good life is working for justice. When we see someone being treated unfairly, it can feel like a personal attack. We may not even know the person who is being mistreated, but we can empathise with their situation. And when we see someone who is different from us being treated unfairly, it can stir up feelings of anger and frustration. But instead of letting those negative emotions take over, we can use them as motivation to fight for justice.

Working for justice doesn’t mean that we have to go out and protest every day or become a lawyer or politician. There are many small ways that we can make a difference. We can stand up for someone who is being bullied. We can speak out against discrimination and bigotry. We can volunteer our time to help those who are less fortunate than us. We can educate ourselves and others about social injustice. And we can vote for candidates who support policies that will make our world a more just and equitable place for all people. We can make justice not only something we try to accomplish with our actions, but something we embody as people.

Do you have a moral obligation to help the world’s poor?

Despite my family not being Catholic at all, I went to a Catholic all-girls high school, because apparently when I was ten years old, I said that I wanted to go to a school without boys. I didn’t find the religious education, or the relatively conservative Christian values of the school to be much of a problem for most of my time there. Compared to the views of my Seventh Day Adventist (the Serbian half of my) family, my education felt rather progressive for the most part, with many members of my family objecting to the fact that we were taught about evolution in our biology classes, and we were told to not always take a literal interpretation of the bible, which again my family didn’t approve of. But there came a critical juncture in my Catholic education, which unbeknownst to me at the time, would change the trajectory of my life.

Being a Catholic school, it was compulsory to study religion in senior school, with two option available to us. ‘Religion And Ethics’ was similar to the religious education classes we’d taken in years eight to ten shaped by Catholicism, which didn’t count towards your overall score for university entry. Students who had no plans to attend university, or wanted a “bludge” subject chose RAE. ‘Study Of Religion’ was a more objective subject that explored how various religious traditions have influenced, and continue to influence, people’s lives, and our grade counted towards our overall score for university entry. I chose to do SOR, which ended up being a good thing, because only your top five subjects get used to calculate your university entry score, which meant my shockingly poor chemistry grades didn’t matter.

I’m not entirely sure what the unit of study was actually about, but in year 12 SOR we watched a documentary called “Peter Singer, a Dangerous Mind.” A 2003 documentary that even then, in 2013 seemed a little outdate, focused on the bioethics of Australian philosopher Peter Singer, who refuted traditional (read: Catholic) ethics on the questions of life and death. I’m assuming that the idea of showing us the documentary was to get us to oppose his ethics, given that they were in direct opposition to the core Christian value of the sanctity of life; the idea that human life, as an extension of God, is inherently sacred. This doesn’t appear to be too problematic at first, but when a human— which Catholics believe begins at conception— is considered to be inherently sacred, a woman’s right to an abortion is considered an immoral act.

One day in class we were presented with a quote from Peter Singer, taken way out of context, and asked to raise our hand if we agreed with his sentiment. The quote read: “An animal experiment cannot be justifiable unless it is so important that the use of a brain damaged human would be justifiable.” I raised my hand, along with one or two of my friends— the remainder of the class did not. When asked by the teacher to explain to my peers why I agreed, I explained my thoughts to the effect of “I completely agree with what he’s saying… if we think that if we use limited intelligence or cognitive abilities as the only moral justification for testing on animals, than that logic should extend to all animals, including humans. If we can’t justify doing it to a human, we can’t justify doing it to an animal.” Immediately, a girl in my class who came from a Catholic family chimed in with a story about her intellectually disabled uncle, who brings so much joy to her family, and how the thought of using him for experimentation upset and angered her. Did she not realise that she was only helping my argument more? “Exactly. And because you can’t justify doing something so cruel to your uncle, how could you justify doing it to any sentient being with the same ability to suffer or experience joy?” She didn’t want to listen to what I was saying. The teacher had succeeded, at least for one student, on further perpetuating this idea that human lives are more sacred than any other sentient being.

At this point in my life, I was already vegan, so the philosophy of Peter Singer— the guy who literally coined the term ‘animal liberation’ in his book of the same title in 1975, and who also coined the term speciesism to describe the idea that human lives are not inherently more valuable than non-human animals— resonated with me and was much more palatable than it may have been if I was not as receptive to the ethical idea that we should cause suffering for sentient beings. The topic of Peter Singer, and my in-class debate with that girl created a bit of a buzz around the school, for at lest a few days. Then one day, a friend of mine (shout-out to Kuei) gave me a copy of one of Peter Singers books. She knew that I was interested in a career in global development and that I was a fan of Singer, and she had received a copy of The Life You Can Save, Singer’s book that demonstrates that we have a moral obligation to help the world’s poorest. She was right. Not only did I love the book, but I ended up going on to major in philosophy at university, and even doing my honours in philosophy, with my honours thesis inspired largely by Singers book One World Now: the ethics of globalisation. When I think back to the fact that if I’d never received a copy of this book, I may not have even found myself working in the social change space (this is something I’ve mentioned in the HCN handbook, The Changemaker In You), it actually blows my mind.

In March 2022, I got to attend An Evening With Peter Singer, an event organised by Think Inc. where I was able to sit literally metres away from him, hear him talk, and even tell him that he inspired me to study philosophy (it was a truly cringe-worthy fangirl moment on my behalf).

In 2009, Peter Singer wrote the first edition of The Life You Can Save to demonstrate why we should care about and help those living in global extreme poverty, and how easy it is to improve and even save lives by giving effectively. Peter then founded a nonprofit organisation of the same name, The Life You Can Save, to advance the ideas in the book. Together, the book and organisation have helped raise millions of dollars for effective charities, supporting work protecting people from diseases, restoring sight, avoiding unwanted pregnancies, ensuring that children get the nutrients they need, and providing opportunities to not only survive but thrive.

SPOILER ALERT: the central argument of the book is as follows:

Premise 1 – Suffering from something and died due to lack of food are bad.

Premise 2 – If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything as nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so.

Premise 3 – By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from the lack of food, shelter and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important

Conclusion – if you do not donate to aid agencies, then you are doing something morally wrong. Whether or not a utilitarian approach to tackling global poverty is the best approach… that’s a post for another day! But the argument is one that is rather compelling, and one that catalysed my own journey as a changemaker and philosopher.

In the decade since the first book’s publication, dramatic progress has been made in reducing global extreme poverty. However, millions still live on less than $1.90 a day, and there is yet much to be done.

To address the continuing need, and to build on the success of the first edition, Singer acquired the book rights and updated the content to be current and even more relevant. With mission-aligned celebrity narrators and by giving away the audiobook and e-book for free (https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org.au/), the 10th-anniversary edition of The Life You Can Save aims to inform, inspire and empower as many people as possible to act now.

What can we learn from Kingian Non-violence

Martin Luther King Jr. was one of the most influential figures in the civil rights movement. He advocated for peaceful protests and civil disobedience to achieve social change. His famous “I Have a Dream” speech is still remembered and quoted today. King also helped to organise the historic March on Washington in 1963, which was attended by over 250,000 people. This event brought national attention to the issue of civil rights and helped to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. King’s work has inspired many people to fight for social justice and equality. He is a symbol of hope and progress, and his legacy continues to influence people around the world.

Kingian Non-Violence

Kingian non-violence is a philosophy and strategy for social change that was developed by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his followers. The core principle of Kingian non-violence is that violence, both physical and emotional, is never an acceptable means of achieving social or political goals. Instead, Kingian non-violence advocates for using peaceful methods to resist oppression and injustice. This includes strategies such as peaceful protest, civil disobedience, and negotiations. The goal of Kingian non-violence is to achieve social change through soul force, or the power of love, rather than through violence. While it is often used in the context of race relations, the principles of Kingian non-violence can be applied to any situation where there is a need for social change.

Religious Influence

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Baptist minister who became one of the most important leaders of the civil rights movement in the United States. Dr. King was heavily influenced by his religious beliefs, and he often drew upon Biblical themes in his speeches and writings. In his famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” for example, Dr. King invoked the story of the Good Samaritan to argue that people have a moral obligation to help those who are suffering. Religion also played a role in Dr. King’s commitment to nonviolent resistance; as a Christian, he believed that violence was contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ. In the end, Dr. King’s faith helped him to become one of the most influential voices for social change in American history.

Principles of Non-Violence

In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” King discusses the principles of non-violence that he believes are essential for achieving justice. One of these principles is that the means always justify the ends. That is, even if the goal is noble, using violence to achieve it is not acceptable. This is because violence creates more animosity and division, ultimately making it harder to achieve the goal. King believed that lasting change could only be achieved through peaceful means. Therefore, he advocated for civil disobedience and other forms of non-violent resistance as a way to bring about social change. While some may disagree with his methods, it is hard to argue with his results. Thanks in part to King’s efforts, the United States is now a much more just and egalitarian society than it was during his lifetime.

The six principles of Kingian non-violence are:

(1) the belief that all people are created equal;

(2) the belief that violence is never justified;

(3) the commitment to active nonviolent resistance;

(4) the willingness to accept suffering rather than inflict it;

(5) the refusal to hate one’s opponents; and

(6) the insistence on seeking reconciliation rather than victory.

These principles provide a framework for those who wish to engage in nonviolent struggle for social change. When followed, they can help individuals and groups to maintain their dignity, integrity, and humanity even in the face of violence and injustice.

We cannot use violence means for peaceful ends

Martin Luther King Jr. advocated for peaceful protests and civil disobedience instead of violence, and his key message resonated with many people; violence may be able to achieve short-term goals, but it ultimately leads to more chaos and destruction. On the other hand, peace creates an environment where people can live and work together harmoniously. It is only through peace that we can hope to create a better future for all.

History has shown us time and again that violence only begets more violence. It creates an endless cycle of retribution and revenge that is difficult to break. In addition, violence often leads to innocent people getting hurt. Instead of creating peace, it creates division and hatred. So how can we create peace if we can’t use violence? The answer lies in communication and understanding. We need to be willing to listen to others and to see their point of view. We need to find common ground and work together towards a future that benefits everyone. Only then can we hope to create a lasting peace.