Socrates' and Crito's conversation about whether or not Socrates should obey the decision of the Athenian court or disobey the city's laws is especially interesting in light of the recent protests that have taken place across the country and the world. Their conversation seems to flirt with the idea of civil disobedience in the beginning, with Socrates facetiously asking, "Shall we say in answer, 'The city has wronged me, and its decision was not right.' Shall we say that, or what?" (50 c).
Socrates makes several arguments why he should not try to save his own life and instead give in to the will of the city, and though at first Crito protests, he eventually acquiesces. The ideas presented in Socrates' argument remind me of the discussion we had in class the other day about Athenian citizens feeling ownership over their city because of the institution of direct democracy. Perhaps even for someone like Socrates, who was a participant of Athenian society but prone to question it, the kind of protest against the government that trying to preserve his own life would have symbolized was too much of an insult to the city that nurtured him, and in effect would not have been in service of his life's mission.
In our own time and place, where we struggle with a representative democracy and peculiar institutions like the Electoral College--and have different views of justice--perhaps civil disobedience and protests like we saw after Trump's inauguration are easier to understand. I think many of us would say that an unjust law should not be followed, and our country's history has shown time and time again why that principle should be respected. However, I think we must still ask ourselves where propriety and respect for law should be upheld, and in what situations deviance from what society and the government ask and expect of us is noble and right.
There is a definite ambiguity about whether the Platonic Socrates can refuse to defend himself against persecution to the best of his ability, or escape punishment to the best of his ability, without compromising his morals (as either way he chooses to do neither and remain steadfast in his commitments). And if there is a way to be morally uncompromised and live, why does Socrates not do so? Is he ignorant of it? Another possibility is that the death or noncompliance is itself is an illustrative Socratic choice, as an example of what is right to do in opposition to an unjust society. Or maybe still the uncompromising plainness of Socrates was an artistic addition of Plato, to make his friend seem a little bit less or a little bit more human than he was at the end.
ReplyDeleteI have another question to Devin's question. Is Socrates ignorant of it or is it his ability to be educated and loyal to his morals. I wonder if it was the artistic rendition of Plato. If Plato did see Socrates as this wise man, maybe he wanted to present him as true to his morals? After all your characters can be what they want. I do agree with you though Katherine, there is a "when" questions when we are thinking about upholding the law
ReplyDelete