Please note that this essay was originally published in 1969 (a year after MLK's murder) in Journal of the American Bar Association.

1. What sort of audience is Van Dusen anticipating for his argument?  Does this partially explain his profound neglect of both ethos and pathos in structuring his argument?
 
 
 
 

2. King assumes the existence of a divine law, higher than civil law, and appeals to this divine law for the authority to disobey any civil laws not in accord with it.  What is Van Dusen's position on divine law?  (This must be inferred; it's not directly stated.)
 
 
 
 

3. What would Van Dusen's advice be to someone who felt that his or her conscience demanded disobedience to a civil law?  How would he advise Antigone?
 
 
 
 

4. In paragraph 7, Van Dusen distinguishes between "the conscientious law breaking of Socrates, Ghandi, and Thoreau" which makes them civil disobedients, and "the conscientious law testing of Martin Luther King, Jr., who was not a civil disobedient" (510).  Explain his reasoning behind this distinction.
 
 
 
 

5. In paragraphs 9-13, Van Dusen argues that while the Boston Tea Party was not civil disobedience, it (and not MLK's civil rights movement) was an appropriate resistance of tyranny.  Explain his thinking here.
 
 
 
 

6. In paragraph 14, Van Dusen begins a typical slippery-slope argument.  Where will a toleration of civil disobedience inevitably lead our society?
 
 
 
 

7. In paragraphs 20-26, what relationship does Van Dusen see existing between disobeying the law and democracy?
 
 
 
 

8. Reread the title of this essay.  What do you see as Van Dusen's thesis?
 
 
 
 

9. Read for a moment as a believer.  What do you find Van Dusen's strongest argument to be?
 
 
 
 

10. Read for a moment as a doubter.  What is he weakest argument?
 
 
 
 

11. Please read on page 427 the paragraph on the "strawperson" fallacy (which in pre-PC days was known as the strawman fallacy).  Then turn to page 428 and read the section on "Begging the Question."  Please then read about "False Dilemma" on page 429.  Lastly, read about the "Slippery Slope" fallacy on pages 430-431.  Is Van Dusen falling into any of these fallacies in hs argument?  If so, please explain any one fallacy into which he falls.