At the first glance, it would appear that Socrates
contradicts his stance on civil disobedience in the Apology and the Crito. The
Apology-Crito problem revolves around how Socrates engages in civil
disobedience, telling the state he will not obey the rulings of the state;
however, in the Crito, Socrates complies with the state by his lack of defiance
and arguing against fleeing from the state. This seeming inconsistency begets
what has been notably termed as the Apology-Crito inconsistency problem. In short,
this problem is the result of a seemingly common misunderstanding that I intend
to resolve by referring to Socrates, for Socrates did not, I contend,
contradict himself in the Apology-Crito.
Firstly, I argue thusly, Socrates, in the Crito, states that we, the
people, have an obligation to obey the law, not that we must always, all things
considered, obey the law (Crito 50-51). Socrates also states, in the Crito,
Do you not
realize that you are even more bound to respect and placate the anger of your
country than your father’s anger? That you must either persuade your country or do
whatever it orders, and patiently
submit to any punishment that is imposes, whether it be flogging or
imprisonment? And… you must not give way
or retreat or abandon your position. Both in war and in [court]… you must do whatever your country commands, or
else persuade it that justice is on your
side; but violence against mother or father is an unholy act, and it is a
far greater sin against your country. (51b-c; emphasis mine)
Socrates seems to utterly act in accordance to his own
words above, for he has voiced his opinion in an effort to persuade the
court—an agent of the state; this being so, Socrates must (a) patiently submit
to any punishment dictated by state and (b) continue the attempt to persuade
that justice is on his side as well as never abandoning his position. The
reasoning is based on a few considerations. Socrates, namely, states that he
has subscribed to laws of the State—from, seemingly, birth—and to unsubscribe
to them now would be unjust for reasons stated in the Crito (Crito 51-52).
This, he does. His attempt to persuade the court was made when Socrates
attempted to defend himself from the accusations from the accusers. This
failing, Socrates is to submit to the court, an agent of the State.
Secondly, I contend that Socrates did was not uncivilly
disobedient. It is Socrates’ attempt to change the State’s view of what is just
that has been interpreted as some sort of crime or disobedience. Perhaps
Socrates was disobeying the laws before being sentenced, knowingly or not;
however, after being sentenced, Socrates acts as if he were obedient towards
the laws of the State while having attempted to change the State’s views. If,
the laws, per se, allow for either a sort of disobedient or obedient manner in
which one may attempt to persuade the State in some manner, then Socrates
attempts the latter—assuming that he was obedient towards the laws previous to
his trial and or crime. Furthermore,
in the Apology, Socrates states that if the State were to have him acquitted
but prohibit him from the practice of philosophy, he, Socrates, would rather be
put to death (Apology 29-30). This act of defiance is what is often referred to
as Socrates’ civil disobedience despite it not being unlawful. In addition,
Socrates’ attempt at the defending himself from accusations was lawful, civil,
but, from the perspective of the State, disobedient as the State found him
guilty of a corrupting the youth. If you contend that Socrates was guilty of
knowingly corrupting the youth, presumably in an attempt to rectify Athens,
then Socrates was indeed disobedient; however, if you contend that the charges
brought upon Socrates are not legitimate, false, then Socrates was not disobedient—I
contend the latter. So, with this in there may not be an inconsistency with
Socrates’ statement and stance about how Socrates would prefer to be put to
death than to stop his philosophy in the Apology and his abidance to the
States’ laws in the Crito. If, however, Socrates was acquitted, the State would
have no say in whether or not Socrates is to stop or continue practicing
philosophy. Being acquitted, the prohibition of the practice of philosophy
would be a suggestion as an acquittal does not bind Socrates to any obligation
rendered by the State. So, in short, Socrates’ disobedience, choosing death
rather than not practicing philosophy, is lawful/civil. Furthermore, Socrates
likely regards the Laws with respect for he has not disobeyed the laws on
purpose and does not want to disobey the laws even when the Laws are to result
in his death. In this perspective,
Socrates remains in accordance to his obedience towards the law that is notably
stated in the Crito (50-51)—the conflict between Crito and Apology erodes.
Socrates remained obedient towards the law in his effort to change the views of
the State towards what is just.
In toto, the two
arguments above are to erode what some people subscribe to, the Apology-Crito
inconsistency. From my perspective, this problem seems to arise from a sort of
Socratic ignorance and or misunderstanding of Socrates or an assumption of
guilt that Socrates intended to corrupt
the youth of Athens. When both the Apology and Crito are both carefully
read and analyzed there does not exist the possibility that the Apology-Crito
inconsistency holds true, for Socrates does not disobey the law
intentionally—it is questionable that he actually committed a crime in the
first place. Assuming that Socrates did not intentionally commit a crime and
that the court simply disliked Socrates, Socrates was innocent and did not
disobey the Laws but attempted to defend himself and promote what gave Socrates
meaning—Philosophy and the attempt to find one wiser than him.
Resources used:
Tredennick, Hugh, and Harold Tarrant. The Last Days of
Socrates. London: Penguin Classics, 2003. Print.
Art: http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/the-collection-online/search/436105
No comments:
Post a Comment