Week 6: Socrates and Obedience to the Law
Lecture 6: The Crito:
Socrates and Obedience to the Law
The confrontation we are calling for with the apostate [non- Muslim] regimes does not know Socratic debates…, Platonic ideals, nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine- gun.
Introduction, Al Qaeda Training
Manual
6.1 Bibliography for this lecture
Lecture notes Dr. Robert Lane, Philosophy of Law University of West Georgia
Syllabus: http://www.westga.edu/~rlane/law/syllabus_law_official_2007-01_spring.html
Socrates and Obedience to the Law: http://www.westga.edu/~rlane/law/lecture04_socrates1.html
Debra Nails “Socrates” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http: plato.stanford.edu/entries/socrates/
Plato The Last Days of Socrates: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo. Trans. Hugh Tredennick, Harold Tarrant. London: Penguin, 1993.
Richard Robinson “Socrates,” in J.O.Urmson and Jonathan Rée, eds, The Concise Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy and Philosophers. London: Routledge, 1992:298- 301.
Plato Crito Translated by Benjamin Jowett http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/crito.html.
6.2 Socrates (469- 399 BCE). Biographical note.
Socrates was a Greek philosopher of Athens. He left no writings of his own, and most probably did not write any. Everything we know about him comes from four sources: Aristophanes, Xenophon and Plato, his contemporaries, and Aristotle, who was born some thirteen after Socrates’ death. Strangely, the only thing that these accounts have in common is that there was once a philosopher named Socrates. We do know about his personal appearance and demeanor, however: he profoundly ugly, with lips like those of an ass, bulging eyes, and an incredible tolerance for alcohol and cold weather. He would go about barefoot and unwashed, with long hair, and a gait so intimidating that even soldiers would keep their distance. (For a good biography, see the Stanford Encyclopedia article cited above).
6.4 Main ideas in Socrates’ thought.
6.4.1 Ethics.
Socrates framed ethical issues primarily in terms of what is now called ‘virtue ethics.’ That is, to be an ethical person, he thought, was to cultivate the virtues, and to be an ‘excellent person’. His discussions on this matter concern the nature of virtue and of what constitutes particular virtues. He tended towards the view that virtue is knowledge and that vice is ignorance.
6.3.2 Logic.
Socrates is considered the founder of logic and hence science. In particular, he is thought to have invented inductive arguments and universal definition. He also pioneered the use and analysis of syllogistic arguments (in which two premises, when put together, necessitate a particular conclusion). He is also famous for what is called the ‘Socratic method,’ in which one analyses another’s preconceptions and exposes their fragility through putting questions to them. To quote Richard Robinson: “[Socrates] impresses us… with the supreme importance of thinking as well as possible and making our actions conform with our thoughts. To this end he preaches knowledge of one’s own starting- points, hypothetical entertainment of opinions, exploration of their consequences and connections, willingness to follow argument wherever it leads, public confession of one’s thoughts, invitation to others to criticize, readiness to reconsider.” In particular, Socrates questioned all forms of authority, including religious authority. Unsurprisingly, many powerful Athenians found this approach disturbing, even dangerous, and in the end it was his undoing.
6.3.3 The Apology and Crito: Introduction
In the summer of 399 BCE, a young poet, Meletus, charged Socrates, then aged 70, of the crime of irreverence (asebeia), defined as failing to pay due respect to the gods of Athens. He was also charged with corrupting the young people of Athens, and of believing in other deities, in particular of a mysterious “Voice of God” (the daimonion) that would speak to him directly. In The Apology, Plato portrays Socrates as giving three speeches in which he defends himself of all charges. ( Significantly, Socrates argues that he has never actually done anything wrong; he argues that, as a teacher of philosophy, “no greater good has ever befallen you in this city than my service to the good,” and that his being brought to trial will only bring dishonor onto Athens: “any one who stages these pathetic scenes [such as his trial]…brings ridicule upon our city.”) In the Crito, Socrates argues with his friend Crito, who argued that Socrates should escape punishment. Socrates’ argument is this: by having chosen all his life to live in Athens, he has in deed promised to pay the laws of Athens, and must keep his promise. As such, Socrates raises an argument fundamental to the philosophy of law: Why should we be obedient to the law?
6.4 The Crito.
Because of religious observances, Socrates could not be executed at once; a month passed after the trial before he could be executed. This gave him time to converse with his friends in prison. The action of the Crito takes place on the morning of his execution. Socrates’ friend Crito tries to convince him to commit an act of civil disobedience, namely, to escape and thereby avoid execution. (Crito and Socrates’ other friends were quite able to bribe the guards to allow Socrates to escape). Throughout his discussion, Socrates imagines himself in a dialogue with the laws of the city-state of Athens. He rejects the reasoning of Crito and states that
Our real task ... is to consider one question only, the one which we raised just now: shall we be acting justly in paying money and showing gratitude to these people who are going to rescue me, and in escaping or arranging the escape ourselves, or shall we really be acting unjustly in doing all this? If it becomes clear that such conduct is unjust, I cannot help thinking that the question whether we are sure to die, or to suffer any other ill-effect for that matter, if we stand our ground and take no action, ought not to weigh with us at all in comparison with the risk of acting unjustly. (p.16, emphasis added)
In other words, Socrates believes that it would be worse to commit an injustice than to allow himself to be executed.
How does Socrates come to this conclusion? At least two different arguments can be picked out from this dialogue, both of which conclude that it would be wrong for Socrates to escape.
6.6 The Social Benefits Argument
The first argument is the Social Benefits Argument. In the Crito dialogue, Crito tries to convince Socrates that he ought to escape prison, both for his own safety and to protect the honor of his friends. (If Socrates does not try to escape, fears Crito, everyone will think that Socrates’ friends were useless in trying to save their friend’s life). In reply, Socrates argues that he is morally obliged to obey the law. Socrates imagines himself having an argument with the Laws of Athens. The Laws, in this account, argue as if they are an actual person, and argue that to disobey them will lead to the destruction of the State.
Tell us what complaint you have to make against us which justifies you in attempting to destroy us and the State? In the first place did we not bring you into existence? Your father married your mother by our aid and begat you. Say whether you have any objection to urge against those of us who regulate marriage?" None, I should reply. "Or against those of us who regulate the system of nurture and education of children in which you were trained? Were not the laws, who have the charge of this, right in commanding your father to train you in music and gymnastics?" Right, I should reply. "Well, then, since you were brought into the world and nurtured and educated by us, can you deny in the first place that you are our child and slave, as your fathers were before you? And if this is true you are not on equal terms with us; nor can you think that you have a right to do to us what we are doing to you. Would you have any right to strike or revile or do any other evil to a father or to your master, if you had one, when you have been struck or reviled by him, or received some other evil at his hands? — you would not say this? And because we think right to destroy you, do you think that you have any right to destroy us in return, and your country as far as in you lies? And will you, O professor of true virtue, say that you are justified in this?
Robert Lane rewrites this argument in standard form as follows:
1. By escaping and thereby disobeying the law, I, Socrates, would be contributing to the destruction of the government of Athens.
2. I have benefited from living in Athenian society, under Athenian laws.
a). The laws made it possible for my parents to marry and therefore made possible my existence.
b). The laws were responsible for my “upbringing and education.”
3. Therefore, I owe to Athens a debt of gratitude.
[Socrates compares the relation between citizen and state to that between parent and child, and says that the state should be even more “precious” to an individual than his or her parents].
4. Therefore, I ought not to do anything that will contribute to the destruction of the state.
Therefore, I ought not to break the law by escaping.
Assessment: There are two steps to evaluating any given argument. The first step is to evaluate the logic of an argument— that is, assuming that the premises are true, does the conclusion follow? With regards to the logic of the argument, we may ask the following questions: does merely breaking the law, through escaping, harm the entire state? With regards to the premises- is Socrates correct in saying that the individual owes the state a debt of gratitude? And should one be more grateful to the State than to one’s own parents?
Criticisms:
a). Do we really have moral responsibilities to abstract institutions?
Harold Tarrant writes:
Obligations in the eyes of the Greeks were either to living human beings, or to departed humans, or to the gods. Justice looked after the first kind, piety (often regarded as a branch of justice) the other two. It was not natural to think of injustice towards abstract institutions, only towards people. But Socrates would not be wronging people by escaping, only the law of the State. So in order that the notion of injustice may be made plausible the Laws of Athens have to be seen themselves akin to rational animate beings (Harold Tarrant, Last Days of Socrates p. 73).
But is this correct? Are the laws of a country such that we must be responsible to them, rather than the people who benefit from our honoring them?
b). Are the laws really more important to us than our parents?
Harold Tarrant, again:
Socrates is made to view the Laws as akin to those human beings to whom the Greek has foremost duty, his parents. It was not just his human parents who brought him up; in a sense they were only serving the laws of the city, which prescribed how it should all be done. Socrates is therefore obliged to obey them as he would a parent, and (it is argued) had on reaching maturity agreed to respect their authority by the very act of remaining in their city. (Last Days of Socrates p. 74).
Yet, even if the Laws are responsible for raising Socrates, they are also responsible for his downfall. Even if we grant that the Laws are very important to our upbringing, are we still obliged to obey them even when they harm us without justification?
Homework: Please read the following lecture (The Implied Contract Argument).
Try to read the full Crito- just over 10 pages long (available here: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/crito.html).
What you need to know for the test:
You must know Socrates’ argument for the Obedience to the Law
You should know some of the vulnerabilities of this argument.
Lecture 7.
Socrates’ Crito:
The Implied Contract Argument
7.1 The Implied Contract Argument.
After introducing the Social Benefits Argument, Socrates outlines a second, related argument:
SOCRATES: ... Shall we say, ‘Yes: the state is guilty of an injustice against me, you see, by passing a faulty judgment at my trial’? Is this to be our answer, or what?
CRITO: What you have said, certainly, Socrates.
SOCRATES: Then what if the Laws say, ‘Was there provision for this in the agreement between you and us, Socrates? Or did you undertake to abide by whatever judgments the State pronounced?’
This indicates that Socrates takes himself to have (at some point) made an agreement with the state that he would obey its laws.
Later in the Crito Socrates expands this idea into a full-blown argument. It is given in Crito immediately after the Social Benefits argument.
…he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the State, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer and he does neither. These are the sort of accusations to which, as we were saying, you, Socrates, will be exposed if you accomplish your intentions; you, above all other Athenians." Suppose I ask, why is this? they will justly retort upon me that I above all other men have acknowledged the agreement. "There is clear proof," they will say, "Socrates, that we and the city were not displeasing to you. Of all Athenians you have been the most constant resident in the city, which, as you never leave, you may be supposed to love. For you never went out of the city either to see the games, except once when you went to the Isthmus, or to any other place unless when you were on military service; nor did you travel as other men do. Nor had you any curiosity to know other States or their laws: your affections did not go beyond us and our State; we were your especial favorites, and you acquiesced in our government of you; and this is the State in which you begat your children, which is a proof of your satisfaction.
Robert Land writes the argument in standard form as follows:
1. Socrates was familiar with Athens’ laws and chose to continue to live there.
2. When one is familiar with the laws of a state and chooses to continue to live
there, he or she enters into an implied contract to obey those laws.
3. Therefore, Socrates has entered into an implied contract to obey Athens’ laws.
(follows from premises 1,2)
4. Having entered into the contract, an individual should either abide by the laws or convince the state that they are unjust [this is because (4a) anything else would be an unjust violation of the contract].
5. Socrates has not convinced Athens that his conviction is unjust.
6. Therefore, Socrates should abide by the laws of Athens (and not escape). (3, 4,
5)
It is this argument that places Socrates in the social contract tradition along with Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). His assumption is that laws are morally justified, and that citizens are morally obligated to obey the law, because of an implied agreement between them and the state.
7.2 Discussion
How convincing is this argument? Are all the premises true? And if they are, do they really entail the conclusion? Many people believe that Socrates’ conclusion was wrong, that having been unjustly convicted, he would not have been doing anything morally wrong by escaping.
7.2.1 The Problem of Changes in the Law
Were the laws that Socrates accept in earlier years really the same ones that charged him with impiety? If not, Socrates cannot really be said to be obliged to obey them. Argues Harold Tarrant:
The agreement made between Socrates and the Laws had been made long ago; thus the Laws can represent only the long- standing aspects of the Athenian legal system. Certainly they cannot embrace ad- hoc decrees, or recent emendations out of sympathy with the traditional law of the city; certainly they cannot embrace legislation passed by the oligarchic regimes of 411 and 404 BC. (Last Days of Socrates p. 74).
This was, in fact, the case. In the year 406BCE, Sparta defeated Athens, and subsequently forced Athens to change both its laws and its government (Nails p. 11). In Japanese terms: imagine that an adult Japanese person, in the year 1950, argued that she had made a tacit agreement to obey the laws of Imperial Japan. The problem is: the abstract institution of pre- war “Imperial Japan” simply did not exist in 1950, just as the government of 405BCE and earlier no longer existed for Socrates. (Even more strangely, in the Apology Socrates argues that this earlier government was quite unjust in executing a number of naval generals, and that his own trial, shameful as it is, will bring only dishonor upon Athens. So how is it unjust to disobey an unjust government or its laws?).
7.2.2. The relationship between law and morality
yet there is a yet more fundamental question: what is the relationship between law and morality? Recall that (in the prior dialogue, the Apology), Socrates makes it clear that he has not committed a crime. So how can it be moral to obey the law and accept the hemlock (the poison that he was ordered by the court to drink)?
Suppose that, in general, we should obey the law. This is not necessarily to say that we should always obey the law, but only that in general, obeying the law is the right thing to do. We might ask: why is this so? why do we have an obligation to obey?
Some possible answers to this question:
· Thomas Hobbes: the obligation to obey the law comes from the fact that, were we in a state of nature, we would all agree to turn over all our rights to a government; that hypothetical agreement means that it is always wrong to disobey the law.
· Plato/Socrates: the obligation to obey the law comes from an implied agreement we make when we choose to remain in a society, and from the debt of gratitude that we owe the government; given these things, it is always wrong to disobey the law.
But there is another possibility:
· We have an obligation to obey the law when the law reflects, or matches up with, morality. For example, stealing someone’s bicycle for no reason other than you want it is immoral. The law prohibits this sort of theft, and so the reason that you should obey the law is that the law simply reflects what it is moral for you to do anyway. But when the law stops doing this—when the law requires that you do something immoral, when the law and morality “come apart”—then it is no longer your moral obligation to obey the law.
This answer assumes that there is a standard of morality above and beyond the law.
Discussion: Can you think if any cases (whether in Japan or elsewhere) where a state’s law and morality come into conflict?
That is, are there cases where following the law may be immoral?
Socrates and Obedience to the Law
The confrontation we are calling for with the apostate [non- Muslim] regimes does not know Socratic debates…, Platonic ideals, nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine- gun.
Introduction, Al Qaeda Training
Manual
6.1 Bibliography for this lecture
Lecture notes Dr. Robert Lane, Philosophy of Law University of West Georgia
Syllabus: http://www.westga.edu/~rlane/law/syllabus_law_official_2007-01_spring.html
Socrates and Obedience to the Law: http://www.westga.edu/~rlane/law/lecture04_socrates1.html
Debra Nails “Socrates” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http: plato.stanford.edu/entries/socrates/
Plato The Last Days of Socrates: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo. Trans. Hugh Tredennick, Harold Tarrant. London: Penguin, 1993.
Richard Robinson “Socrates,” in J.O.Urmson and Jonathan Rée, eds, The Concise Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy and Philosophers. London: Routledge, 1992:298- 301.
Plato Crito Translated by Benjamin Jowett http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/crito.html.
6.2 Socrates (469- 399 BCE). Biographical note.
Socrates was a Greek philosopher of Athens. He left no writings of his own, and most probably did not write any. Everything we know about him comes from four sources: Aristophanes, Xenophon and Plato, his contemporaries, and Aristotle, who was born some thirteen after Socrates’ death. Strangely, the only thing that these accounts have in common is that there was once a philosopher named Socrates. We do know about his personal appearance and demeanor, however: he profoundly ugly, with lips like those of an ass, bulging eyes, and an incredible tolerance for alcohol and cold weather. He would go about barefoot and unwashed, with long hair, and a gait so intimidating that even soldiers would keep their distance. (For a good biography, see the Stanford Encyclopedia article cited above).
6.4 Main ideas in Socrates’ thought.
6.4.1 Ethics.
Socrates framed ethical issues primarily in terms of what is now called ‘virtue ethics.’ That is, to be an ethical person, he thought, was to cultivate the virtues, and to be an ‘excellent person’. His discussions on this matter concern the nature of virtue and of what constitutes particular virtues. He tended towards the view that virtue is knowledge and that vice is ignorance.
6.3.2 Logic.
Socrates is considered the founder of logic and hence science. In particular, he is thought to have invented inductive arguments and universal definition. He also pioneered the use and analysis of syllogistic arguments (in which two premises, when put together, necessitate a particular conclusion). He is also famous for what is called the ‘Socratic method,’ in which one analyses another’s preconceptions and exposes their fragility through putting questions to them. To quote Richard Robinson: “[Socrates] impresses us… with the supreme importance of thinking as well as possible and making our actions conform with our thoughts. To this end he preaches knowledge of one’s own starting- points, hypothetical entertainment of opinions, exploration of their consequences and connections, willingness to follow argument wherever it leads, public confession of one’s thoughts, invitation to others to criticize, readiness to reconsider.” In particular, Socrates questioned all forms of authority, including religious authority. Unsurprisingly, many powerful Athenians found this approach disturbing, even dangerous, and in the end it was his undoing.
6.3.3 The Apology and Crito: Introduction
In the summer of 399 BCE, a young poet, Meletus, charged Socrates, then aged 70, of the crime of irreverence (asebeia), defined as failing to pay due respect to the gods of Athens. He was also charged with corrupting the young people of Athens, and of believing in other deities, in particular of a mysterious “Voice of God” (the daimonion) that would speak to him directly. In The Apology, Plato portrays Socrates as giving three speeches in which he defends himself of all charges. ( Significantly, Socrates argues that he has never actually done anything wrong; he argues that, as a teacher of philosophy, “no greater good has ever befallen you in this city than my service to the good,” and that his being brought to trial will only bring dishonor onto Athens: “any one who stages these pathetic scenes [such as his trial]…brings ridicule upon our city.”) In the Crito, Socrates argues with his friend Crito, who argued that Socrates should escape punishment. Socrates’ argument is this: by having chosen all his life to live in Athens, he has in deed promised to pay the laws of Athens, and must keep his promise. As such, Socrates raises an argument fundamental to the philosophy of law: Why should we be obedient to the law?
6.4 The Crito.
Because of religious observances, Socrates could not be executed at once; a month passed after the trial before he could be executed. This gave him time to converse with his friends in prison. The action of the Crito takes place on the morning of his execution. Socrates’ friend Crito tries to convince him to commit an act of civil disobedience, namely, to escape and thereby avoid execution. (Crito and Socrates’ other friends were quite able to bribe the guards to allow Socrates to escape). Throughout his discussion, Socrates imagines himself in a dialogue with the laws of the city-state of Athens. He rejects the reasoning of Crito and states that
Our real task ... is to consider one question only, the one which we raised just now: shall we be acting justly in paying money and showing gratitude to these people who are going to rescue me, and in escaping or arranging the escape ourselves, or shall we really be acting unjustly in doing all this? If it becomes clear that such conduct is unjust, I cannot help thinking that the question whether we are sure to die, or to suffer any other ill-effect for that matter, if we stand our ground and take no action, ought not to weigh with us at all in comparison with the risk of acting unjustly. (p.16, emphasis added)
In other words, Socrates believes that it would be worse to commit an injustice than to allow himself to be executed.
How does Socrates come to this conclusion? At least two different arguments can be picked out from this dialogue, both of which conclude that it would be wrong for Socrates to escape.
6.6 The Social Benefits Argument
The first argument is the Social Benefits Argument. In the Crito dialogue, Crito tries to convince Socrates that he ought to escape prison, both for his own safety and to protect the honor of his friends. (If Socrates does not try to escape, fears Crito, everyone will think that Socrates’ friends were useless in trying to save their friend’s life). In reply, Socrates argues that he is morally obliged to obey the law. Socrates imagines himself having an argument with the Laws of Athens. The Laws, in this account, argue as if they are an actual person, and argue that to disobey them will lead to the destruction of the State.
Tell us what complaint you have to make against us which justifies you in attempting to destroy us and the State? In the first place did we not bring you into existence? Your father married your mother by our aid and begat you. Say whether you have any objection to urge against those of us who regulate marriage?" None, I should reply. "Or against those of us who regulate the system of nurture and education of children in which you were trained? Were not the laws, who have the charge of this, right in commanding your father to train you in music and gymnastics?" Right, I should reply. "Well, then, since you were brought into the world and nurtured and educated by us, can you deny in the first place that you are our child and slave, as your fathers were before you? And if this is true you are not on equal terms with us; nor can you think that you have a right to do to us what we are doing to you. Would you have any right to strike or revile or do any other evil to a father or to your master, if you had one, when you have been struck or reviled by him, or received some other evil at his hands? — you would not say this? And because we think right to destroy you, do you think that you have any right to destroy us in return, and your country as far as in you lies? And will you, O professor of true virtue, say that you are justified in this?
Robert Lane rewrites this argument in standard form as follows:
1. By escaping and thereby disobeying the law, I, Socrates, would be contributing to the destruction of the government of Athens.
2. I have benefited from living in Athenian society, under Athenian laws.
a). The laws made it possible for my parents to marry and therefore made possible my existence.
b). The laws were responsible for my “upbringing and education.”
3. Therefore, I owe to Athens a debt of gratitude.
[Socrates compares the relation between citizen and state to that between parent and child, and says that the state should be even more “precious” to an individual than his or her parents].
4. Therefore, I ought not to do anything that will contribute to the destruction of the state.
Therefore, I ought not to break the law by escaping.
Assessment: There are two steps to evaluating any given argument. The first step is to evaluate the logic of an argument— that is, assuming that the premises are true, does the conclusion follow? With regards to the logic of the argument, we may ask the following questions: does merely breaking the law, through escaping, harm the entire state? With regards to the premises- is Socrates correct in saying that the individual owes the state a debt of gratitude? And should one be more grateful to the State than to one’s own parents?
Criticisms:
a). Do we really have moral responsibilities to abstract institutions?
Harold Tarrant writes:
Obligations in the eyes of the Greeks were either to living human beings, or to departed humans, or to the gods. Justice looked after the first kind, piety (often regarded as a branch of justice) the other two. It was not natural to think of injustice towards abstract institutions, only towards people. But Socrates would not be wronging people by escaping, only the law of the State. So in order that the notion of injustice may be made plausible the Laws of Athens have to be seen themselves akin to rational animate beings (Harold Tarrant, Last Days of Socrates p. 73).
But is this correct? Are the laws of a country such that we must be responsible to them, rather than the people who benefit from our honoring them?
b). Are the laws really more important to us than our parents?
Harold Tarrant, again:
Socrates is made to view the Laws as akin to those human beings to whom the Greek has foremost duty, his parents. It was not just his human parents who brought him up; in a sense they were only serving the laws of the city, which prescribed how it should all be done. Socrates is therefore obliged to obey them as he would a parent, and (it is argued) had on reaching maturity agreed to respect their authority by the very act of remaining in their city. (Last Days of Socrates p. 74).
Yet, even if the Laws are responsible for raising Socrates, they are also responsible for his downfall. Even if we grant that the Laws are very important to our upbringing, are we still obliged to obey them even when they harm us without justification?
Homework: Please read the following lecture (The Implied Contract Argument).
Try to read the full Crito- just over 10 pages long (available here: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/crito.html).
What you need to know for the test:
You must know Socrates’ argument for the Obedience to the Law
You should know some of the vulnerabilities of this argument.
Lecture 7.
Socrates’ Crito:
The Implied Contract Argument
7.1 The Implied Contract Argument.
After introducing the Social Benefits Argument, Socrates outlines a second, related argument:
SOCRATES: ... Shall we say, ‘Yes: the state is guilty of an injustice against me, you see, by passing a faulty judgment at my trial’? Is this to be our answer, or what?
CRITO: What you have said, certainly, Socrates.
SOCRATES: Then what if the Laws say, ‘Was there provision for this in the agreement between you and us, Socrates? Or did you undertake to abide by whatever judgments the State pronounced?’
This indicates that Socrates takes himself to have (at some point) made an agreement with the state that he would obey its laws.
Later in the Crito Socrates expands this idea into a full-blown argument. It is given in Crito immediately after the Social Benefits argument.
…he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the State, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer and he does neither. These are the sort of accusations to which, as we were saying, you, Socrates, will be exposed if you accomplish your intentions; you, above all other Athenians." Suppose I ask, why is this? they will justly retort upon me that I above all other men have acknowledged the agreement. "There is clear proof," they will say, "Socrates, that we and the city were not displeasing to you. Of all Athenians you have been the most constant resident in the city, which, as you never leave, you may be supposed to love. For you never went out of the city either to see the games, except once when you went to the Isthmus, or to any other place unless when you were on military service; nor did you travel as other men do. Nor had you any curiosity to know other States or their laws: your affections did not go beyond us and our State; we were your especial favorites, and you acquiesced in our government of you; and this is the State in which you begat your children, which is a proof of your satisfaction.
Robert Land writes the argument in standard form as follows:
1. Socrates was familiar with Athens’ laws and chose to continue to live there.
2. When one is familiar with the laws of a state and chooses to continue to live
there, he or she enters into an implied contract to obey those laws.
3. Therefore, Socrates has entered into an implied contract to obey Athens’ laws.
(follows from premises 1,2)
4. Having entered into the contract, an individual should either abide by the laws or convince the state that they are unjust [this is because (4a) anything else would be an unjust violation of the contract].
5. Socrates has not convinced Athens that his conviction is unjust.
6. Therefore, Socrates should abide by the laws of Athens (and not escape). (3, 4,
5)
It is this argument that places Socrates in the social contract tradition along with Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). His assumption is that laws are morally justified, and that citizens are morally obligated to obey the law, because of an implied agreement between them and the state.
7.2 Discussion
How convincing is this argument? Are all the premises true? And if they are, do they really entail the conclusion? Many people believe that Socrates’ conclusion was wrong, that having been unjustly convicted, he would not have been doing anything morally wrong by escaping.
7.2.1 The Problem of Changes in the Law
Were the laws that Socrates accept in earlier years really the same ones that charged him with impiety? If not, Socrates cannot really be said to be obliged to obey them. Argues Harold Tarrant:
The agreement made between Socrates and the Laws had been made long ago; thus the Laws can represent only the long- standing aspects of the Athenian legal system. Certainly they cannot embrace ad- hoc decrees, or recent emendations out of sympathy with the traditional law of the city; certainly they cannot embrace legislation passed by the oligarchic regimes of 411 and 404 BC. (Last Days of Socrates p. 74).
This was, in fact, the case. In the year 406BCE, Sparta defeated Athens, and subsequently forced Athens to change both its laws and its government (Nails p. 11). In Japanese terms: imagine that an adult Japanese person, in the year 1950, argued that she had made a tacit agreement to obey the laws of Imperial Japan. The problem is: the abstract institution of pre- war “Imperial Japan” simply did not exist in 1950, just as the government of 405BCE and earlier no longer existed for Socrates. (Even more strangely, in the Apology Socrates argues that this earlier government was quite unjust in executing a number of naval generals, and that his own trial, shameful as it is, will bring only dishonor upon Athens. So how is it unjust to disobey an unjust government or its laws?).
7.2.2. The relationship between law and morality
yet there is a yet more fundamental question: what is the relationship between law and morality? Recall that (in the prior dialogue, the Apology), Socrates makes it clear that he has not committed a crime. So how can it be moral to obey the law and accept the hemlock (the poison that he was ordered by the court to drink)?
Suppose that, in general, we should obey the law. This is not necessarily to say that we should always obey the law, but only that in general, obeying the law is the right thing to do. We might ask: why is this so? why do we have an obligation to obey?
Some possible answers to this question:
· Thomas Hobbes: the obligation to obey the law comes from the fact that, were we in a state of nature, we would all agree to turn over all our rights to a government; that hypothetical agreement means that it is always wrong to disobey the law.
· Plato/Socrates: the obligation to obey the law comes from an implied agreement we make when we choose to remain in a society, and from the debt of gratitude that we owe the government; given these things, it is always wrong to disobey the law.
But there is another possibility:
· We have an obligation to obey the law when the law reflects, or matches up with, morality. For example, stealing someone’s bicycle for no reason other than you want it is immoral. The law prohibits this sort of theft, and so the reason that you should obey the law is that the law simply reflects what it is moral for you to do anyway. But when the law stops doing this—when the law requires that you do something immoral, when the law and morality “come apart”—then it is no longer your moral obligation to obey the law.
This answer assumes that there is a standard of morality above and beyond the law.
Discussion: Can you think if any cases (whether in Japan or elsewhere) where a state’s law and morality come into conflict?
That is, are there cases where following the law may be immoral?
posted by G. Roche | 6:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home