As a citizen of Athens, Socrates was charged with not believing in the required gods and of going so far as to conceive of unofficial gods. It was a case of him asserting his own independent moral and religious ideas over that of the state. In Plato's Apology, Socrates defended himself against his accusers by explaining to the court that the oracle at Delphi inspired him. The oracle was known to be very wise, and Socrates admits to the court that he himself is not so wise. Thus, his ideas and actions were inspired by the oracle and because obeying wise men is the law, Socrates was in fact not disobeying Athenian laws or norms. At least that was the rationale he tried to offer in his defense. Ideas about civil disobedience find their most famous supporter in Henry David Thoreau who was so impressed by the notion that he titled his essay simply Civil Disobedience. Thoreau advocates for people who take a stand based on what their conscience tells them above and beyond what the government and the laws prescribe. At the heart of civil disobedience is intention. Yes, it does mean refusing to obey laws, government directives, and even military orders that are inimical to one’s personal belief system and conscience. However, true civil disobedience carries with it the requirement that the refusal is an action taken with the aim of changing the law or the way the government or military has things set up. In this case, to qualify as civil disobedience, it was not enough that Socrates disobeyed the government. He must have done so with the goal of changing the system. During his trial, Socrates criticized Athenian laws, policies, and institutions. That criticism in itself was considered civil disobedience because Socrates was challenging authority. Because Athens prided itself on being very wise, Socrates suggested that the city had become quite lazy. When he asked his accuser Meletus questions, those questions were designed to make Meletus look foolish and therefore a poor representative of a system priding itself on wisdom. Socrates went on to explain that without his actions Athens would remain unshaken and blind to its own faults. Therefore, it appears that Socrates did have a goal of shaking up the government and challenging unjust ideas in order to create change. His goals make his actions in line with the definition and intention of true civil disobedience. Civil disobedience does not always have a happy outcome for the person who is attempting to be the catalyst of change and enlightenment. In Socrates’ case, he asked the court to pardon him because his actions had all been on behalf of the greater good. He compared himself to a gadfly that arouses a champion horse that has grown lazy, “If you kill me, you will not easily find such another man as I, a man who— if I may put it a bit absurdly— has been fastened as it were to the City by the God as to a large and well-bred horse, a horse grown sluggish because of its size, and in need of being roused by a kind of gadfly” (Plato Apology 30d). Socrates’ argument that he was just trying to shake the great Athenian government out of its complacency was not accepted by the court. They viewed his actions more like those of an anarchist. To the judges, Socrates was not merely trying to inspire thinking; he was advocating for revolution and attempting to undermine the entire Athenian system (Allen 51). Unfortunately, for Socrates, he was found guilty. Possibly in response to the fact that his had been a one-man peaceful rebellion and he was a teacher by profession, the judges asked him to explain how he should be punished. Socrates recommended that Athens give him his due by feeding him. “What then is fitting for a poor man who has served his City well, and needs leisure to exhort you? Why, Gentlemen of Athens, nothing is more fitting for such a man than to be fed in the Prytaneum, at the common table of the City” (Plato Apology 36d). Socrates obviously viewed his actions as a style of civil disobedience that would be commended were the judges people with opinions similar to those of Thoreau, but such was not the case in Athens. When Socrates realized he is not going to get off lightly he explained that exile and prison would be too harsh a punishment for what he was trying to accomplish in his teachings. In Crito, Socrates proclaimed himself a law-abiding citizen, which for the most part of is the opposite of the anarchist his accusers made him out to be. By not even attempting to get away from authorities or avoid trial, Socrates explained that he proved to the, that he is the epitome of a respectable but poor citizen and teacher. He could have escaped and saved himself the danger of a trial but he did not flee because his aim was to enlighten Athenian authorities (Allen 112). He wanted to change things and shake things up and civil disobedience was the route he took. In Apology, we learn that Socrates was very open about his teaching and his philosophy. He explained things to students in public because he disagreed with the authorities. It was not the first time Socrates had come up against Athenian social order. In the past, he challenged the way war was waged and the problem of generals who abandoned their men after battle. In that case, he was apparently part of a group protest against the law and voted against the council (Plato, Apology, 32a). So in the past during both his political protest and when teaching, Socrates is revealed to be operating in the truest sense of civil disobedience because he objected on principle and his goal was change. Scholars usually consider Socrates as a civil disobedient because as a teacher and a philosopher, he subscribed to natural laws that were at odds with the government’s laws and directives. That is a proto-type of the philosophy subscribed to by Thoreau called Transcendentalism (Myerson, 146). While that philosophy was popular during the 1800s and 1900s, at its most basic it denies that laws and morals are necessarily those instituted by government organizations and men who are in power and have decided upon a given code or ethic. This is the same notion Socrates put forth. He claimed that he had examined his conscience and consulted the wisest person in the land. Based on his own personal assessment, he came to conclusions that differed from those of the Athenian bureaucracy. In order to really know things rather than to simply be instructed in the way things are, someone must examine ideas and look inward. Socrates acknowledged the importance of Athens and regarded it as a great city, but it was a city that had stagnated in his opinion and needed to re-examine itself. Socrates believed that individuals should live according to truths arrived at via rigorous self-examination. He was not advocating anarchy, he was advocating careful analysis. During his trial Socrates asserted, “That government with all its power did not terrify me into doing anything wrong” (Plato, Apology, 32e). It is this type of attitude that gives the ironic twist to the title. Socrates never really did tell the authorities he was sorry because he was not sorry, he felt he did the right thing. When Socrates realized he was not going to get off with an easy sentence from the court, he began to negotiate. He offered to pay a fee and he refused to even consider going into exile or staying in prison. His negotiations for a lighter sentence do not make him any less than a civil disobedient. There is no part of the code of civil disobedience that requires the person to suffer for agitating authorities in favor of conscience. Unfortunately, for Socrates, the Athenian court took a dim view of the concept of personal freedom and sentenced him to death. He pondered his fate, and tried to be brave. Socrates claimed to be unafraid of death, noting that no one but the gods (who were basically the subject of his crime) knew what happened to a person after he died. One of his final barbs was to tell the court that ultimately they and by extension Athens would suffer more from the death of Socrates than Socrates himself would suffer. He asserted that as a man, his number one duty was to himself and his commitment must be to his own conscience and not the unjust laws and dictates of the government. In Apology, Socrates tried to explain himself and deflect judgement against him; however, he did not apologize for being civilly disobedient.
Works Cited
Allen, R.E. Socrates and Legal Obligation. Minneapolis, MN, USA: University of Minnesota Press, 1981.
Myerson, Joel, ed. Transcendentalism: A Reader. Cary, NC, USA: Oxford University Press, USA, 2000.
Plato. Apology, Crito, and Phaedo of Socrates. Project Gutenberg, 2004. Internet resource.
