Introduction
It
appears that the positions taken by Socrates in the Apology and Crito
presents two contradictions. This has left many Socratic scholars wondering as
to why the philosopher would have chosen to take such apparently opposing
positions. Some have even found it necessary to suggest that Socrates supported
civil disobedience. What follows is an attempt at analyzing that situation.
View free quality essay samples at Essay Typing
View free quality essay samples at Essay Typing
Why the seeming contradiction and the salient
differences?
The
reality, however, is that the context of ancient Athens does not support an
interpretation attributing support for civil disobedience in any of the two
apparently contradictory positions(Marchevsky,2004). In Crito, Socrates underscores the fact that his agreement was with
Athenian laws and neither with the government nor the court. One can advance
the same argument in respect to the Apology
to contend that Socrates had kept his agreement with Athenian laws while the Thirty
Tyrants had not. The process that brought the Thirty Tyrants to power might
have been sufficiently legal and legitimate before they turned to being
arbitrariness in their administration. This would have removed any taint of
legitimacy that they might still have held. It is also fair to reject any
interpretation that would suggest that Socrates could have believed that he was
disobeying any law simply because he failed refused to bring a man for summary
execution by the people who had not legitimacy as the Thirty Tyrants. Rather,
Socrates was simply sending the message those arbitrary orders must be
disobeyed as a way of keeping true to the laws.
In
addition, Socrates’ willing acceptance of death in Crito was also an exemplification of his commitment to Athenian
law. Athenian law did not authorize the court to penalize a person it was acquitting
(Marchevsky, 2004). The court only had the power to find him guilty or innocent
and subsequently impose a penalty prescribed by the accuser or an alternative
one chosen by Socrates. Imposing a condition that Socrates stop practicing
Philosophy upon acquittal was therefore an act lacking legitimacy on the part
of the court. Thus, it is very uncharacteristic of Socrates to have accepted
such a condition given his commitment to obedience of laws which he fervently
preached.
Problems of successful justification of civil
disobedience
Although
very difficult to successfully justify, an acceptance of civil disobedience
presents a number of problems. Socrates himself mentioned some of them. For
instant, he noted that a situation where citizens disobey laws would lead to
the destruction of the rule of law (Ponzani, 2011). It is a requirement of the
principle of the rule of law that citizens resort to the available legal
channels to solve their problems. Civil disobedience is directly against this
important requirement as it advocates for the intentional violation of some laws.
The breakdown of the rule of law eventually leads to the disintegration of the
given society. It would be impossible to imagine a society in the form of
modern states without a system of rules to which every member of that society
subscribes. Philosophical justifications of the origin of laws emphasize the
role of laws in achieving social integration (Ponzani, 2011). For instance, the
social contract theory advanced by philosophers such as Hobbes detail how laws
were central in eliminating the state of nature. Lastly, the anarchy that stems
from social disintegration is a sure recipe for tyranny. Tyrants thrive in a
state of lawlessness and civil disobedience would even facilitate the incentive
for tyrannical rule since rulers would not have to reference their actions to
any rule. It is for these reasons that Socrates is troubled by the problems of
civil disobedience.
Making sense of the seeming inconsistency
From
what has already been discussed, the seeming contradiction between Socrates in Crito and Socrates in the Apology can
only be construed as an erroneous interpretation of the two dialogues
(Marchevsky, 2004). Scholars who see Socrates as supporting civil disobedience
in one and obedience to laws in the other must be seen as taking a wrong
position in either of the accounts. The various scholars taking the position
that Socrates might have supported civil disobedience retain the burden of
proving why they choose one of the dialogues of the other. It is a burden that
is yet to be discharged given that there is as of yet no convincing explanation
offered for this choice. Besides, neither the Apology not Crito
attempts to create any hierarchy which between the two should supersede the
other in establishing the position of Socrates on duty towards the law.
Damaging or solvable tension?
Following from the foregoing discussion, it would be safe to conclude
that the apparent tension between the two dialogues is not fatal to Socrates
well known commitment to the rule of law. Some of the attempts to resolve the
tension have largely been unsuccessful due to their failure to move beyond the
common interpretations of the two dialogues (Marchevsky, 2004). For example, there are scholars who have only
moved from this common approach to the extent that they want to fulfill their
political agenda of making Socrates as the founder of civil disobedience. It
would only require a holistic analysis of the relevant texts to see the
contradiction disappear.
References
Marchevsky, M. (2004).Socrates Misinterpreted
and Misapplied: An Analysis of the Constructed Contradiction
between the Apology and Crito.Macalester
Journal of Philosophy, 13(1) (online).
Ponzani,D.M. (2011). Defiance, Pursuasion or
Conformity? The Argument in Plato’s Apology and
Crito.Peitho/Examina Antiqua, 1(2),
111-121.
0 comments:
Post a Comment