Laws are established in a country so as to maintain order in the community. Laws are mainly written by leaders and failure to follow the laws leads to punishment by law enforcers or the judicial department. One may wonder whether or not citizens should follow the law without any objections. The obedience and lawbreaking issues appear to be a crucial issue in the real world as people struggle with enforcing and obeying laws stipulated in various institutions or nations. Some famous philosophers such as Socrates have played a significant role in the world of philosophy. Socrates defined and considered the aspect of law in various perceptions to describe the obedience and breaking of laws. The government has one of the most important laws, and Socrates helps understand the laws of the government.
Socrates was accused of corrupting the young population with his teachings, which was a capital crime at the time. He was then tried before a judge and jury and a panel. After the trial, he was sentenced to death. The sentence was affected when he was forced to take poison. During his trial, there was no point at which he ever denied the charges. He accepted that corrupting the young was a crime that was punishable by death. D'Amato (1) describes the crime as a common law offense. There was no precedence offered that would suggest that participating in philosophical arguments could be a capital offense.
It is natural for the law to try and protect its young and Socrates agreed that if he was found guilty of corrupting the young, then he deserved to be punished for doing so. The interesting fact about Socrates’ case is that corrupting the young was based upon actions that Socrates took all his life. He was a philosopher, and therefore, he asked questions of any willing audience. He looked for their weaknesses by examining the logic of their answers and then attempted to reason out the truth. He tried to persuade the community, including the young and the old. He did not care about their age; rather, he cared about the development of their minds and souls. He neither asked for any money for his teachings nor did he force anyone to force anyone to listen to him (D'Amato 5).
Since Socrates taught all his life, it means that he was breaking the law all his life too. His acts were inseparable from his crime. His life stood for the proposition that he should teach his arguments to anyone who would listen. Socrates defended himself by arguing that there was no solid defence that he intended on harming someone through his teachings. He also claimed that no young person ever complained about his teachings, implying that his teachings never harmed the young. Socrates interests and attracts the young people in his argument about the laws. It is because most young people appear to experience more difficulties in obeying any laws.
Socrates also claimed that his students challenged the more elderly population in his name, therefore embarrassing them. Socrates considered the trial as a means of directing their anger towards them. They preferred to direct their frustrations at him rather than admit to their ignorance. Despite the petty motives of the more elderly population to prosecute Socrates, the state may have perhaps let the trial go on since he also encouraged the young to abandon their gods, which were recognized by the city. The accusation was a much stronger basis for his prosecution. Socrates taught the youth to consider their logic, to examine their arguments carefully and to think for themselves. D'Amato, (6) argues that youth that is allowed to think for themselves are cannot depend on to believe what their ancestors believed in when they lived.
The people and the rulers of Athens recognized particular gods, lifestyles and duties. The aspects kept the societies together in peace and when they went to battle, which kept them together. Socrates’ teachings that encouraged thinking for themselves compromised the institutions. His teachings were, therefore, considered as a threat to society. It was not by accident that Socrates was accused and prosecuted. The court offered his negative influence on societal beliefs as evidence.
Socrates was offered acquittal on the conditions that he would no longer teach others about his philosophies. However, he refused the offer claiming that he would continue to reveal the truth as for as long he was alive. He even refused the option of exile. He thought that if Athenians refused his teachings, then the city that he would go to would still refuse him (Morris 78). The logic made sense since he already said that he would not stop making people aware of their ignorance. Therefore, it made sense that other societies would still be as ignorant as Athenians.
One of the most important junctures of the case was the way he described the legitimacy of the trial. Socrates drew the distinction between trial and the accusers. Socrates accused the prosecutor of unfairly prosecuting him since there was no real guilt to charge him with the claimed offense. During his prosecution, Socrates referred to his accusers as “my slayers”, suggesting that he believed they were wrong to accuse him (Jowett).
It is important to contrast the ethicality of the accusation against Socrates from the procedures followed by the Athenian judicial system. Socrates’ belief was that the jury followed the law. Therefore, Socrates’ seemingly never questioned the legality of the trial or whether or not they followed the law by taking him to trial. Socrates claimed that he had been sent to awaken the other Athenians from their ignorance by the gods. Despite asserting that he was doing the right thing, Socrates claimed that authorities had made their ruling and that he had to follow it. He insisted that the decision had been made by the laws and accepted the sentence with no objections.
Socrates equate the law with the procedures that were used and applied to him. According to (Kraut 34), the procedures with which Socrates was prosecuted and convicted were certainly just. There were 500 jurors; evidence was presented and a verdict given. Perhaps Socrates never considered whether the law under which he was convicted was a just one or not. It is not possible to know or determine whether or not Socrates would have considered the law, however, Kraut (36) argues that Socrates may have been trying to distinguish between injustice and suffering it. The accusers were doing injustice to him, but he would not have done injustice by escaping from prison. Socrates did not believe in breaking the law. His philosophy included following it and not objecting to any instructions as long as they were done according to the law.
Socrates’ escape may not have harmed any person physically such as the guards or any other person, however, he was imprisoned by his obligation to the law. Crito represents the time in which Socrates addresses why one must obey the state (Jowett). Socrates addressed the issue of right from wrong from the state’s perspective. There is the argument that, to destroys the nation morally wrong. If anyone disobeys the state laws, then they are destroying the country. If Socrates decided to escape the rule, then he would have destroyed the state. Socrates’ decision to break the law would have justified other breaking the law. The only way that Socrates’ found right to escape his death was through the persuasion of the jurors.
Kraut analyses the issue of persuading or disobeys the government. There are two reasons that kraut uses to explain why one should do so. Firstly, one must obey the law in their state since he or she has also benefited from it just as off springs benefit from their parents. Secondly, anyone who has an agreement with the state has an obligation to persuade or disobey.
There is nowhere in Crito that the literature states that is okay to violate the law. It seems that it is either persuade of getting punished. Individuals should, therefore, be entirely submissive to the law, Socrates argues “"I must obey the law and make my defence." However, the people from Athens did not fully submit from the law, since there was already a court. Socrates was one of those that did not follow the law. He admitted that he as corrupting the young minds of Athens. Additionally, he encouraged citizens to question everything they believed in, including the gods, which were an important part of the Athenian culture. He went against the beliefs of the state and, therefore, broke the law. It is rather paradoxical with Socrates’ argument of that one should be fully submissive to the law. If he had fully submitted to the law, he would not have tried to corrupt the young minds since the law prohibited it.
Kraut argues that it is okay to disobey the law as long as one persuades. He argues that it the place that one should try to persuade that the breaking of the laws is in court. If an individual has broken or disobeyed the law, he or she should be summoned to court and persuade the city why he had to break the law. According to Kraut, one should do so since he or she has an agreement with the city. Therefore, as one claims to belong to a particular city, he or she should ensure that all laws are obeyed. City laws help in ensuring the proper governance of the activities as well as for the benefit of all citizens fairly and equally. Without te presence of governing laws, human beings cannot live in harmony due to the different abilities, desires, needs and levels of moral and immoral capacities.
However, Kraut’s argument is opposed by Morris (78) by arguing that one should only appear in front of the court to persuade the state that his or her actions were not wrong. Additionally, one may also appear in front of the court to convince the state that they are the ones with the error. If one believes in Kraut’s argument, then it means that it is okay to disobey as long as one can convince the state about their actions. Therefore, Kraut’s argument appears to be a critical theory to be used in law enforcement in the modern world. The actions of people depend on their ability to obey any enforced laws or rules and regulations. Most learning institutions and workplaces, as well as the nation, have laws that must be obeyed.
Although Socrates credited the state for nurturing and educating him, he still would have been born, educated and nurtured without the state’s help. It was his after who paid for the schools. Education was not a gift from the state or people as a whole. The state was not, therefore, entitled anything from Socrates. Everyone exchanged everything, but the state did not have any claim to it. However, one may argue that Socrates also benefited from the state, such as security and defence from the enemies outside the community. Perhaps the provision of security is an accurate explanation for the nurturing argument by Socrates. Socrates did, however, serve in the army. Has he not given back to the state? It is therefore not logical to presume that one owes the state anything.
Socrates may have argued that one should always follow the law. However, one may wonder whether or not all laws are included. Suppose Socrates had questioned the laws that were being used against him. Would he still have accepted the sentence Are all laws included? Hornbeck (140) argues that one may contend that if one has an agreement with a state, with such laws, then one has made a bad deal. Perhaps it is a contract the one has signed, and Socrates has a duty to observe the contract. Therefore, despite Socrates having given his services to the state, he may have been obliged to follow the law since he was part of a contract. Socrates uses his services in the nation and also for personal reasons.
Since Socrates believed that one should not do evil against the government, he believed that he should not escape, since he believed that running away would have been an evil against the state. He argue, “Then we ought not to retaliate or render evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him”. The argument suggests that he may have believed that wrong was done against him, but he ought not to retaliate by escaping. He believed that going against the law would be against the wished of those that live under the law.
However, the problem with the argument is that the agreement was not explicit. If it is correct to claim there is a contract, then it should be part of the contract that the accusers and the prosecutors would act responsibly. One would expect that those in charge will execute the law for the benefit of the society. Just like the society was protecting him from external aggressors, then it should also protect him from wrongful prosecution. The continuous use of power to manage and enforce rules also applies in reality. People in the authority often manipulate their authority and break dome of the rules as they wish.
According to utilitarian theory, an action is moral if one does it out of good will or lies under the categorical imperative. Immanuel Kant believed that individuals have the ability to determine what is right or wrong. Socrates claimed that those that accused him only did so because his followers were making a fool out of them and, therefore, they were wrong to do so. They did not accuse him because they intended on following the law, but in retaliation for Socrates actions. These were actions out of selfishness and not good will or a sense of duty. Therefore, if Socrates was correct about his accusers, then they were morally wrong to go ahead with the prosecution. To play politics and place a man’s life at stake simply because of self-interest is immoral in a realistic sense. Socrates should have considered the fact that the accusers may have been immoral in breaking the law.
The law is meant to give citizens autonomy and freedom to its citizens. The law that prevented Socrates from using giving him the freedom to think and teach his opinions may also have been immoral. If Socrates were prosecuted under an unjust law, he should have denied the verdict and save his life. Socrates considered his options and decided to deny the verdict as the only way to be safe. Socrates acts like any rational human being in the situation and the desire to prove his innocence. Kraut argues that one should not entirely submit to the law. However, he agrees that one should try to persuade the court to avoid a sentence (Kant, 1996). However, persuading the court us not enough since one will still be subject to the court’s punishment.
Socrates’ argument does not also consider that that those who enforce the law can also commit immoral actions. The accusers may have followed the law. However, their intentions according to the Socrates were wrongful. Therefore, should one submit to law regardless of those exciting it? One may contend that not defending oneself is allowing an injustice. By accepting the sentence and not breaking out of prison, Socrates accepted an unjust law upon him, which contradicts his philosophy that he should never break the law. Besides, utilitarianism posits that an action is moral if the will to do was good. However, such reasoning may be affected by the time. In the past, perhaps people did not have the liberty to question the law, and advance in time has allowed people to question the law and debate it.
The governance of a nation depends on stipulated laws written down for people to follow and understand. The laws help in preventing crime, other immoral activities as well as ensuring free and fair activities for all citizens. However, failure to follow or according to the laws leads to time in jail or other punishments that are conducted by the judges. However, in some places the people in power appears to rise above the law. It means that they can do whatever they want because they create and manage the laws. It has led to the issues of corruptions due to the desire to evade the law. Laws always seem to suck the fun out of various things, and that makes many people tempted to break the laws.
Socrates’ government
Socrates did not hide the contempt he had for his government. This consequently influenced Plato’s political thinking. Socrates aimed to expose the errors in the conventional views and by using inductive arguments. He was sentenced to death for his denial of the current democratic government. He was too bold in exposing their inconsistencies. They, therefore, wanted him out of the way. The accusation and the trial was just a ruse to make him the enemy to make the democratic vote go through.
Many proclaim the democracy should be the way for states to be governed. Many do not realize that the greatness of a free land is the republic. Socrates’ case shows that the constitution should protect the citizens from being conspired against. However, most people have lost the vision of such an inspired document. Socrates’ government was one that was not open to a democratic view. One where citizens are allowed to challenge the core beliefs of the communities.
In any state or region, the members of the society are too many to participate in implementation of policies. Therefore, there have to be representatives that have to make decisions for the public. governments have the ability to take over authority over its citizens, to take over taxes and determine the state’s expenditure. The government also represents and speaks for the people that it should serve. In Crito, Socrates says, “ that is ought to escape the wishes of the people”
Governments are supposed to be institutions that liberate the people and gives them the chance to live freely. Governments should work towards protecting its citizens from harm from others. However, governments are also made of people, and therefore, who should protect the people from the government? Socrates was under attack from the people in the government because he was a liberal. He may have admitted that he had to follow the law, however, should the personal interest of the accusers be important? Sometimes people lose vision that what is more important that the government is the law. The law is the last
Socrates as a philosopher attempts to explain the meaning of the law and its importance in government. He successfully delivers an extensive understanding of the law. The most government uses the police as law enforcers such as in traffic and various crowded joints. Schools are considered as the most common places where young ones learn the aspect of laws. Teachers and school administration provide laws that students are expected to obey. Once rules are broken, they are punished accordingly. However, Socrates helps in understanding what people are forced to do just to save their lives from punishment or prosecution. Therefore, laws and the government go hand in hand according to Socrates, and they should be perceived as a just and moral way of governing people.
Work cited
Kant, Immanuel. Practical Philosophy, Trans. And edited by Mary J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Print.
D'Amato, Anthony. “OBLIGATION TO OBEY THE LAWS: A STUDY OF THE DEATH OF SOCRATES.” Southern California Law Review (1976): 1-23.
Hornbeck, Patrick. “Reforming authority, reforming obedience.” Journal of the Society for Reformation Studies (2014): p138-162. Print.
Jewett, Benjamin. Euthyphro by Plato. 17 12 2014. www.ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/plato/p71eup. 20 3 2016.
Jowett, Benjamin. Crito. 14 12 2014. ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/Plato/p71cro/. 20 3 2016.
Kraut, Richard. Socrates and the State. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1984. Print.
Morris, Thomas F. Heythrop. “Why Socrates Does not request Exile in Apology.” eythrop Journal (2014): 55 Issue 1, p73-85. Print.
