 So, yeah, his goal is for just treatment for, you know, pretty much everybody, right? He's not interested in just securing justice for just one group. He wants justice for everybody. And specifically, you know, African Americans, right, they're, at the time they were not treated with justice, they were not treated with dignity. They were not treated with the full freedom and liberty that was guaranteed to them by their constitutional rights. So he was basically trying to, you know, fix that. Now, he wasn't, at least in this letter, that's pretty much all he was interested in, was securing justice and liberty for his people, or for everybody. But how is he going to go about doing this? So if you think he's trying to persuade people with natural law theory, not really. I mean, if he were doing that, then he would, what, lecture, right? He'd provide lectures using natural law theory, the basics of the Constitution, and, you know, visit different, you know, houses of legislature, and kind of do that nonstop, right? He would use reason again and again and again. Now he uses natural law theory, but not with direct nonviolent action, right? Natural law theory comes in to play with negotiation and investigation, right? That's when natural law theories apply. You know, really, and King doesn't say this, but if you look at what's happening here, reason has failed at this point, right? Being out that all people should have the same rights according to the Constitution, because the Constitution says all people should have the same rights, you know, that's not hard to grasp the reason. And if pointing that out to people and using the, you know, using natural law theory to justify the sort of equality of rights as equal rights, if people don't see that, reason's not going to do it, right? Reason has failed. King doesn't say it that way, but that's where reason comes into play with investigation and negotiation. Now, King actually changes tracks with, with, as far as maybe ethical theories are concerned. I mean, again, I'm not sure he would quite phrase it this way, but he changes his approach in terms of ethical theory. By the way, under natural law theory, at least as we studied Locke, you know, some persons oppressing you, they've entered the state of war and you can fight back with violence, right? You can kill the other people because they've entered the state of war. King doesn't want that either. Now, when he uses natural law theory up to a point, he uses natural law theory to justify that everybody should have equal rights, but he doesn't thereby use it, you know, he doesn't use it thereafter to claim that, oh, okay, well, hey, you're not going to give it to us, let's take up the rifles. He doesn't do that. In fact, he stays away from it. And in several places in this letter, he wants to avoid any kind of hatred, physical or even just, you know, internally, emotional and mental hatred. So it's not using natural law theory. And he's also not trying to say that, well, we're going to get equal rights through violence. We're going to, if they're not going to give us, if they're not going to acknowledge our equal rights, which we should already have, we're going to take up arms. He doesn't do that either. No, he changes tactics. I mean, think about this a little bit because it's subtle. He has left reason behind. Well, which of the moral theories that we've studied kind of leave reason behind? Well, certainly not Kant, not Mill. He's not doing Aristotle, he's not talking about virtues, he's talking about basically social political philosophy. Which of these theories? Well, Hume very definitely left reason behind. But he's certainly not appealing to Hume. Hume would say, do whatever you want. Hume would say that those that were, I mean, I don't know if Hume wants to say this, but his theory nevertheless implies that, you know, if you really want to oppress people, okay, go ahead. You know, there's the passions. That's probably a bit of a mischaracterization. But it's difficult to explain why everybody should have equal rights over Hume's view. Okay, well, what has he done? He's left reason behind. He's still trying to convince people that African-Americans need to be granted equal rights. How does he go about doing it? He steps out onto the street and he gets beaten. He doesn't beat, right? He doesn't fight. He doesn't hurl angry insults. He gets abused. Hume and all his people get abused. What's the result of that? How do other people react? I mean, if you've got any kind of humanity in you, you react with sympathy. Like, that's awful. Look what's happening to them. You get these other people who are otherwise strangers to care about you. King changes tactics. He tried reason with investigation, negotiation, didn't work, and he goes to care. He goes to sympathy, emotion. So yeah, King uses the ethics of care to persuade people to grant equal rights.