Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
tyranny in ancient greece
civil disobedience in the united states
the case against civil disobedience
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: tyranny in ancient greece
PHIL 160 Essay
Yuting Fu
Professor: Daniel Sanderman
Socrates and Civil Disobedience Many people, especially scholars, might believe that Socrates had committed a civil disobedience. But it seems to be the exact opposite to me. Before I explain my reasoning behind my claim, let’s first understand what civil disobedience truly is, and what exactly did Socrates do to cause the trouble. Civil disobedience is being disobedient to certain laws in a peaceful, but active manner. So the person who commits civil disobedience must actively rejects to follow certain laws of government and peacefully accept the consequences. For example, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is a typical example of modern civil disobedience. He actively rejected to follow
…show more content…
The first one is the charge of impiety. The second one is the charge of atheism. In the ancient Greek, people did not really care about what exactly you put your faith on, but they did care a whole lot about whether you have put your faith on something and acted piously accordingly. And according to Socrates, both of the charges were not true, because, as claimed by himself, he was on the mission that the god of wisdom gave him. Other than what he has been charged for, Socrates also mentioned and admitted that he had defied the orders before. The first time was for the trial of the generals. Socrates believed that have the generals on trial as a group was a violation of law, and therefore he voted against it. The second time was during the ruling of the thirty tyrants. This time, Socrates rejected the government as a whole and denied the power that the government had. It will seem like Socrates might be civil disobedient due to what he had been charged for, his arguments on court, and what he had done in the …show more content…
For what Socrates did on the court, I do not think they should be accounted toward civil disobedience. Because all he did is to defend himself in a lawful manner. He was actually defending against the ideas that he was being unlawful (impiety and atheism). Because, as we all know, Athens’s law required its citizens to be pious of what they believe. Socrates claimed that he was on the mission given by the God at Delphi, and it would be ridiculous to say that he should be charged of atheism or impiety. And I think his defense was successful and persuasive. And therefore he was not being civil disobedient on the court. What about his past? For the two cases in the past, Socrates was either rejected the government as a whole, or the majority excluding him was being unlawful. I will start with the thirty tyrants. Socrates was rejecting the orders that were given by the government of thirty tyrants in a peaceful manner. But instead of rejecting part of the laws and obeying others, Socrates rejected the government as a whole. Therefore Socrates was not being civil disobedient by definition. In the case of the ten trial generals, it is clearly documented that Athens’ law requires having generals in cases like this put into trials separately. Yet the majorities voted for having ten generals put into trial as a group. Socrates voted against it and defied against the orders by the majorities. Socrates was trying to protect and follow the
King was well aware of the laws, and knew that his protests, even peaceful, would have resistance to it. Yet, at the same time King didn’t care that it would’ve been illegal. He clearly stated that any law that he feels is unjust, he would fight against it whether it was legal to do so or not. The same can be said of Socrates in Crito, because he knows he got there for disobeying the law. In the eyes of the law, he corrupted the youth of Athens by exposing them to questioning and examining everything around them. When he is questioned why he doesn’t want to attempt to escape his death, he states that he feels it is unjust to escape. Socrates did what he believed his job was, which was to enlighten the youth to the unjust ways of society. While the way he was punished for it was unjust, Socrates stated that he has lived a happy life, and if he can’t rightly persuade the Laws of Athens to change its mind and let him go then he can accept
Socrates refuses to disobey the law. He believes in the correctness of the cities laws. He believes it is never right to act unjustly. He thinks that if you do not agree with the laws of the area that you are living at, then to leave and go somewhere else. He argues that the government could be seen as “his parents, also those who brought him up,” (Crito, 51e), since he has lived there his entire life and when you live somewhere for so long you should “persuade us or to do what we say,” (Crito, 52a) or leave. Socrates tells Crito that
Socrates defends himself against the charges brought against him by his prosecutor Meletus in two ways. One way consists of a description of Socrates’ motivation and method, which he hopes will explain to the jury why some people, including his prosecutors, dislike him. The second defense consists of Socrates responding directly to the two charges brought against him: “corrupting the young” and impiety, or more specifically, “not believing in the gods in whom the city believes” (p. 28). I’ll address these two lines of defense in turn.
Despite the differences in situations, King acknowledges that Socrates is a proponent of civil disobedience because of his unwavering commitment to truth and virtue. I believe while Socrates did go against the injustice within his society, he did not go as far as King. Ultimately, I utilize King’s form of civil disobedience as the exemplary form and when compared to the Socratic methods of Socrates, it proves that his actions did not reach the extent of King’s. However, Socrates’ differences in the methods, used to fight injustice, do not stem from a lack of devotion to the truth. In his time, Socrates was in no way subservient to the citizens of Athens, but was regarded with great honor. The injustice he was fighting was ignorance within his people, whereas King had to fight against oppression. In Birmingham, King’s oppressors lacked respect and so he needed to use clear and direct actions to achieve equality for his people. The variance between King and Socrates’ environments ultimately demonstrate Socrates going against his society, but when compared to King his actions, are not civil disobedient. (Ignorance vs.
Socrates claims that just acts contribute to the health of the soul, while unjust acts contribute to the corruption of the soul (Plato 50). Injustice should never be committed since a life with a corrupted soul is not worth living (Plato 50). Therefore, you should never act with injustice, not even for revenge (Plato 52). Ethics should be obtained at all times. Once this is proven with Crito, Socrates brings attention to the Laws and Commonwealth of Athens. The Laws put forth arguments for the assertion that Socrates would be committing an injustice if he were to escape his sentencing. The first argument states that a citizen has an obligation to his or her state; this obligation should be stronger than that of a child’s obligation to his or her parent. Athens acts as a parent to its citizens by nurturing and educating them. Since the city of Athens has given Socrates many benefits, he feels as though he has an obligation to his city. Socrates does not want to reap the benefits, without providing his loyalty to Athen...
This paper highlights a few fallacies that surround Socrates’ ideas about acting against unjust government.
Many people have gone through their lives conforming their beliefs and practices for the sake of fitting in or for the happiness of others, but Socrates was not one of these people. In “The Apology” Plato shows Socrates unwillingness to conform through a speech given by Socrates while on trial for supposedly corrupting the youth of Athens and believing in false gods. Although the title of the dialogue was labeled “The Apology,” Socrates’ speech was anything but that, it was a defense of himself and his content along his philosophical journey. At no time during the trial was Socrates willing to change his ways in order to avoid punishment, two reasons being his loyalty to his God and his philosophical way of life.
Socrates, in his conviction from the Athenian jury, was both innocent and guilty as charged. In Plato’s Five Dialogues, accounts of events ranging from just prior to Socrates’ entry into the courthouse up until his mouthful of hemlock, both points are represented. Socrates’ in dealing with moral law was not guilty of the crimes he was accused of by Meletus. Socrates was only guilty as charged because his peers had concluded him as such. The laws didn’t find Socrates guilty; Socrates was guilty because his jurors enforced the laws. The law couldn’t enforce itself. Socrates was accused of corrupting Athens’ youth, not believing in the gods of the city and creating his own gods. In the Euthyphro, Socrates defends himself against the blasphemous charges outside the courthouse to a priest Euthyphro. Socrates looks to the priest to tell him what exactly is pious so that he may educate himself as to why he would be perceived as impious. Found in the Apology, another of Plato’s Five Dialogues, Socrates aims to defend his principles to the five hundred and one person jury. Finally, the Crito, an account of Socrates’ final discussion with his good friend Crito, Socrates is offered an opportunity to escape the prison and his death sentence. As is known, Socrates rejected the suggestion. It is in the Euthyphro and the Apology that it can be deduced that Socrates is not guilty as charged, he had done nothing wrong and he properly defended himself. However, in the Crito, it is shown that Socrates is guilty only in the interpretation and enforcement of Athens’ laws through the court system and its jurors. Socrates’ accusations of being blasphemous are also seen as being treasonous.
Thoreau and Socrates start Civil Disobedience and Crito with basically the same premise. They both believe that humans are essentially moral beings. Thoreau says that people if left to their own ends will act justly, and should be treated accordingly by the law. Socrates says essentially the same thing, he says that "no one wants to commit injustice" for its own sake, many people end up doing so anyway. Socrates says that the citizens of a government have entered into an agreement to abide by its laws in exchange for protection. He also says that if one believes these laws to be unjust, one can always leave, but if one agrees to abide by the laws they have a duty to be subjected to punishment if they break these laws. Thoreau on the other hand says that it is the duty of the people not to abide by a law if they perceive it to be unjust, and if they claim to be opposed to it and nevertheless abide by it, they are a hypocrite.
Socrates believes that since he lived a fulfilling and content life in Athens, that he should be okay with the end result regarding the laws of city. While his choice is a bit submissive, the fact remains that Socrates is being help in prison under false convictions and thus a decision must be made by the reader as to whether or not Socrates could break out and not actually break the laws. Crito mentions that if Socrates is to make no attempt at escaping, he will leave his sons without a father. Socrates acknowledges t...
If Socrates was such a constant critic of the government, then why did he never question the Athenian government what his rights as a citizen were? Socrates’ claimed he was “gadfly” who “was attached to this city by the god” (30e) but he never critiqued what the implications of the relationship between the government and citizens were. In Socrates’ perspective, if one chooses to live in Athens, then one is implicitly agreeing and abiding the Laws of Athens (52b.) Although Hobbes’ may agree with this point to some extent, the sole intent of a covenant in which “every man should say to every man ‘I authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this man’” (109) was to protect oneself from harm/death. For Hobbes, the relationship between government and citizens was mutual; the government would acquire power and authority only if citizens were guaranteed protection and defense. For Socrates, the relationship between government and citizens was one-sided; the government should have complete dominance and citizens should blindly obey the government’s commands if one is unable to persuade the government on how to rule. For this reason, Socrates’ had no care for his self-preservation as he was only concerned with the government’s best
What exactly is Socrates being accused of? "Socrates is guilty of engaging in inquiries into things beneath the earth and in the heavens, of making the weaker argument appear the stronger, and of teaching others these same things" (29). Socrates is charged with impiety, a person who does not believe in the gods of Athens. Socrates defends this charge, claiming that he was propositioned by the gods through the Oracle of Delphi, to question people's wisdom. He states, "...but when god stationed me, as I supposed and assumed, ordering me to live philosophizing and examining myself and others...that my whole care is to commit no unjust or impious deed." By claiming that defense, Socrates manages to sway Meletus toward his point. This point being that Socrates cannot both be atheistic and to believe in demons, for this would contradict his not believing in gods at all, s...
Socrates, according to Plato challenged the norms of society by questioning life and having others question it as well. He was labeled of “corrupting the youth” and for not believing in the Athenians gods. “Socrates is guilty of corrupting the young, and of not acknowledging the gods the city acknowledges, but new daimonic activities instead.” (The Apology, pp 654) Although, he was cast by being “corrupt”, Socrates had many followers that saw him as a wise man. Socrates trial was made up of thirty jurors, who were later known as “The Thirty.” The “Thirty” really wanted was to silence Socrates, rather than taking his life. However, Socrates did not want to disobey the laws, he did not want to be violated of his right to freedom of speech, nor did he did he want to be undermine his moral position. (The Apology, pp. 647) He stood against injustice acts several times while he was in counsel. “I was the sort...
One historical figure that loved Socrates’ ideas was Martin Luther King Jr. In King’s famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail, he mentions Socrates by name several times, commending his provocative thinking. He says, “Isn’t this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock?” The idea of civil disobedience is one that has permeated through generations. Dr. King suggests that Socrates is one that sparked this movement of asserting rights by defiance. He says, “To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience.” Even the father of the Civil Rights Movement found inspiration in Socrates’
...ns. Why would he do this if he did not see the laws of Athens as just? In order to fulfill the agreement he has made with Athenian law, Socrates must accept the punishment he is given, though he feels that his being punished is Athens wronging him. It would be wrong, by his view, to escape from prison, though he would not be pursued, because he would be breaking his agreement to obey Athenian law. Since he and Crito previously agreed that one must never do wrong, he simply must stay in jail until his death. This is merely one example of the way in which Socrates uses a method of logical dialogue in order to make his point. He appears to be unmatched in his skills of deduction and consistently demonstrates his love of knowledge and truth. Socrates exemplifies all that is philosophy, both as a student and a teacher, because of his constant, active pursuit of wisdom.