The state claims to have authority over the behavior of the people it governs. It issues laws that we are obliged to obey.
It also claims authority over intellectual questions such as “what is justice?” or “what is the right thing to do?” Although no one can be compelled to believe the state’s answers to these questions, we are supposed to act as if the state has the final word.
Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King, Jr. each make a case for disobedience when the state acts unjustly. They find that they cannot put their own consciences aside.
We will be interested in how they think through their attitudes about disobedience. Both draw on the natural law tradition in finding moral standards that are independent of the state. Thoreau seems to come very close to not accepting the state’s authority at all. He is willing to pay taxes and obey laws, but only when doing so makes sense to him. He seems to recognize no authority other than himself. King, by contrast, thinks it is important that he accepts the state’s authority even while he disobeys what he regards as unjust laws.