The value and respect that citizens have in observing an established government of society is a tradition that has been established for centuries. The puzzling question about government is that it is important to ask where this respect to be a law abiding citizen actually comes from? Historically, there have been many texts throughout the ages that debate the citizen versus the government and how the government claims its inherit right to nurture, control, and aide the citizen. One of the literary works that has been a constant reference throughout the ages of how the citizen is obligated to follow the laws of the government is Plato’s Crito in which Socrates is on trial waiting to be executed. This paper will explore Socrates’s debates about government in general and his obligations to his government. Through this analysis we will see a school of thought developed of how the model citizen should idealize their government and follow their government’s laws. It is as a result of this work, that we see many modern works debate the role of the citizen and their government through citing directly or indirectly the themes and inferences debated in this famous work of Plato.
The first aspect to cover is to ascertain why Socrates claims that he owes his government obedience? This fundamental question is the essence of what the work Crito tries to resolve. In order to understand Socrates’s debate about his obedience to his government, it is imperative to understand what the text of Crito is actually discussing. The dialogue of Crito takes place in Socrates’s prison cell, (D’Amato, A.). At dawn, Socrates is visited by his friend Crito who tries to persuade him to escape and offers him the possibility of exile, (D’Amato, A.). Socrates is not open to the possibility of escaping and then decides to stay, (D’Amato, A.). As a result of this decision or stubbornness, Crito is forced to present his case to Socrates in order to try to persuade him to escape his punishment, (D’Amato, A.). Of these arguments that Crito presents, two are the most relevant. The first argument that is presented is that if Socrates in fact stayed, he would be assisting his enemies in wronging him unjustly, and would be in essence acting unjustly himself, (D’Amato, A.). The second argument presented is that he would be leaving his sons without a father, (D’Amato, A.). While Socrates makes many responses to these argument, his one response as he speaks for the respect of his government is a sound argument that has been echoed throughout the ages.
What Socrates conveys about his concept of government is the following: given that the laws of Athens exists as one entity, to break one would be to break them all, and in doing so, would cause them great harm, (D’Amato, A.). Socrates make references to the citizen as being bound to the government in a similar way as a child is bound to their parent, (D’Amato, A.). Socrates infers that laws are a form of social contract and that by being a citizen and choosing to live in Athens, he is implicitly endorsing the laws and is willing to follow them, (D’Amato, A.). Socrates makes quite clear his position by then stating that: if he were to escape from prison, he would be violating the very social contract that he voluntarily subscribed to as a citizen, (D’Amato, A.).
In Socrates’s dialogue, he makes a pivotal distinction about how he owes his government. This is an important concept of the citizen to the government relationship because it poses the question, does the citizen in fact owe their government? And further, should the government be giving benefits to the citizens that are sufficient to warrant the obligation of owing anything at all? These questions are fascinating because it brings up my philosophy that a government provides citizens with protection and an identity. Arguably, the identity or purpose that a government give a citizen is what seals the deal of the social contract that Socrates is referring to because it essentially creates the desired climate to be a citizen or member of a well organized legal society. This is government’s fundamental purpose; to protect, define, and organize, (Legal Obligation and Authority). The cultural identity prescribed creates the foundation of the culture of the government that then can be turned into obligation to the government for the sense of belonging to a group, race or religion that the essence of government provides to citizens, (Legal Obligation and Authority). This is how the government gets away with restricting the citizen who merely wants to belong by justifying their participation in the government’s society by curtailing the rights and freedoms of this individual who has voluntarily subscribed to the command of the government, (Legal Obligation and Authority).
Government is essentially defined as: “the political direction and control that is exercised over the actions of members, citizens or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, and political administration, (Wellman, C.). What the majority of governments have in common is the notion of establishing an order in which the citizen can enjoy, (Wellman, C.). Through this establishment of ideal environment, the government is creating a citizen that should be grateful for their purpose and essentially, comply with the government’s desires, (Wellman, C.). The citizen through subscribing to this agreement with their government becomes obligated to their government, (Wellman, C.).
Bearing in mind this purpose of government, it is important to analyze the beliefs of Socrates and how they positively benefit or contradict this definition of government. Where Socrates’s perspective is distinct is that he takes government to immediately translate to laws. However, I am willing to argue that there is a middle link in the chain between government, rights, and obligations of citizens. Socrates purports that if he breaks one law of Athens, he is essentially breaking them all; however, his reasoning misses the step where he explanation of where there is government there is law and where there is law there is government, (Hrezo, M.). This argument feeds directly into whether the citizen can in fact be expected “to obey.” This aside, presuming that government automatically means jurisprudence, Socrates has a collectivist approach in his view of government, (Hrezo, M.). He infers obligation to all laws rather than one. He links each and every law prescribed by the government to be a package purchase, (Hrezo, M.). If you break one, you have essentially broken them all. In this sense, I agree yet also disagree with Socrates because I do not necessarily equate government to law. I do not think that they always go hand in hand in modern society. There can be governments without law that hold power and so, this obligation that is inferred from Socrates by being a citizen, fails to establish that he is in fact required to follow any code at all. By merely stating that he is a citizen, therefore he is bound, is part of the reasoning required for this argument but not the entire story to automatically presume “obligation.”
Socrates, in describing government, compares the government and the citizen to that of the parent and the child, (D’Amato, A.). The fascinating aspect of this comparison is that it once again, fails to establish the connection necessary to infer obligation adequately. Just as the child is expected to receive laws or rules from the parent, it is not automatic by merely having a parent. The government example in this sense is the same idea because it establishes that there is a superior body, but it does not necessarily establish that there are in fact rules from this supposed government, (Locke’s Political Philosophy). That being said, I do not believe the parent child example is the best example of how to portray the citizen’s relationship to the government. The reason for this is that the citizen is not necessarily a blood relative of the government. Given the ebb and flow of nations over the ages, it is difficult to make the argument that by being a citizen, one is related sufficiently to establish a bond similar to that of a parent and a child. I would argue that the government is more of a conductor of the orchestra that is the citizen’s life. Each citizen arguably has their very own instrument and the sound of the composition essentially creates the culture that we seen in nations around the world. The government guides and steers the citizen into the proper direction and then the citizen, through this guidance, then inherits their obligation to follow the symphony that the government is directing with poise. This analogy is also better to demonstrate a government that is not effective because it allows the citizen to see if there is an overture missing that is critical to the symphony that is tying to be directed.
In discussing whether the citizen has an obligation to obey their government, Socrates’s view is one view; however, its accuracy is dependent on the perspective of the individual arguing the case. To first argue Socrates’s perspective, I agree that the citizen, if they are enjoying the rights of the government has an obligation to be obedient to the laws; however, what if the laws are corrupt? What if the laws were made as a gross error of judgment in a corrupt government? Is the citizen then required to follow every law? I would argue, not! History has showed us this examples all over the world if one is to carefully examine global affairs. In arguing the contrary and engaging in a game of devil’s advocate, I am willing to argue that the citizen is not obligated to obey their government without question. I feel that this leads to extremist regimes that we see all over the world today. In fact, North Korea comes to mind with this example. I believe that the citizen is allowed to debate what the government is passing legislation and should be able to choose whether they are obligated to follow the laws. Now, I am not advocating cafeteria legal shopping; however, I am arguing that the citizen should have the ability to question a law that is potentially unjust and should not be uniformly bound to follow laws for the sake of following laws. The laws have to be questioned in order to promote change. If we followed Socrates’s argument religiously, we would have many problems in society because our legal system would remain the status quo. A great example of this principle is the civil rights movement in the United States. Had the African Americans decided to not break the discrimination laws because they had an “obligation” to follow all of the government’s laws, they would have perpetuated the elongation of their discrimination, (Hrezo, M.). It is important to view this argument through this lens because Socrates is essentially arguing that he is against the principle of legal debate and implementing change. If he is afraid of challenging a potential wrong on the sake of uniform principle of the citizens being obligated because they are citizens of the government, then he is stalling the very essence of debate that we foster in the United States.
In considering the United States, our entire legal framework is comprised of the citizen’s right to question the government. In fact, we foster debate and believe that everyone has a voice that is allowed to be protected, heard, and celebrated. This is sometimes even observed to a fault in this country. The reason that the United States has such extreme views on the citizen’s right to have a voice is because of the harsh history of treatment that the founding fathers faced in their former European countries. The primary revolving theme around this was the monarch’s absolute supreme power and how the citizens were forced to follow what the monarch wished.
The Untied States was founded on challenging the government and decentralizing the government’s power. Thus, in comparing Socrates’s arguments to the United States, I believe that his arguments are weak particularly when applied to the American system. In order to understand why I make this argument, it is wise to take a look at the framework of the United States in more depth.
When considering who founded the United States and how it was founded, Socrates would be having a nervous break down. America was founded basically by a petition that was stating what was wrong with English rule. The citizens did not respect nor feel obligated towards their government due to the treatment that the government was giving them. This very fact is a piece that is missing from Socrates’s argument because he fails to take into account what rights the citizen has when the government has been abusive?
America’s formation was founded on the basis of asking the difficult questions as citizens of how to make a better government? In America, the citizens were obligated for something different and that was to create a better government. The symphony analogy discussed fits better than the parent child one outlined above by Socrates because the Americans decided to write their own sheet music for their own new orchestra that carefully plotted how to not end up like England. This culture is still prevalent in the veins of our culture as United States citizens because our government was formed to protect us from the treatment received by our founding fathers; however, we were also obligated to “check” on our government to see how it is doing, (Hrezo, M.).
The system of checks and balances in the United States has a fascinating role in comparison with Socrates’s argument of what citizens are obligated to do within a society. Socrates argues that citizens are forced to merely follow all the laws where in the United States, citizens are molded to question and to help the society to evolve. That is where American citizens are obligated to evolve over time. This is a wonderful way for the citizens to express their viewpoints and fight to implement change if there is an injustice that needs to be overturned. This is a key distinction between Socrates and the way that both modern and the original Americans operate and operated.
While Socrates’s loyalty to Athens is admirable, it is flawed in its essence because it fails to establish the necessity to separate individual law from the collective whole. It is possible that Plato, at that time, did not see examples similar to our modern world when he was writing Crito. His views were simplistic on the concept of morality and the duty of a citizen to obey; however, where Plato’s approach is flawed is that it prevents the citizens of the state to enjoy the right to debate and explore new thought processes. It is through this discussion and debate that law should be separated in pieces. These pieces are what make up the fundamental pieces of society. There are some principles that must stand the test of time and others that need to evolve as society evolves and advances. Today’s demons in society will surely not be tomorrow’s and Socrates’s view fails to take into account the need for continued debate and change of laws that may no longer be applicable or are unjust. Socrates fails to take into account the other side of ethics. He argues a more egocentric approach to make himself appear righteous and ethical; however, his ethics fail to take into account the need to protect the society as a whole rather than the morale of one citizen. This is precisely why Socrates has a view that is flawed and too narrow when discussing the rights and obligations that a citizen should ideally possess from the government of their home country or nation state.
References
D’Amato, A. Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Obligation to Obey the Law: A Study of the Death of Socrates. Retrieved from: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1110&context=facultyworkingpapers/.
Hrezo, M. Is There a Duty to Obey the Law – A Scholarly Review. Retrieved from: http://www.lawcourts.org/LPBR/reviews/wellman-simmons0906.htm/.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Legal Obligation and Authority. Retrieved from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-obligation/.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Locke’s Political Philosophy. Retrieved from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/.
Wellman, C. Is There a Duty to Obey the Law? New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 214pp. Hardback
