The Case of Socrates
It is a historical fact that Socrates was convicted of impiety and sentenced to death by an Athenian court in 399 BC. It is a matter of dispute whether the verdict was just and whether Socrates was right to submit to the State of Athens and not escape with the aid of his friends.
In a recent blogpost, a Thomist philosopher stated that Socrates went too far and that Aristotle was justified in fleeing Athens in a similar situation, lest the Athenians sin twice against philosophy. As a Platonist, I disagree, naturally. Socrates elevated philosophy by dying nobly, whereas Aristotle sinned against philosophy by living cowardly, for one extra pitiable year at that.
The Examined Life
One common misconception about Socrates is that he believes obedience is always due to the State, but that misses the forest for the trees. The entire thesis of Socrates is not obedience to the State, but obedience to reason. People who do not follow reason are tyrants unto themselves and others.
A man who is obedient to reason would not only know his own rights, but also acknowledge the rights of others. The Trial of Socrates is a perfect example of this. I should clarify that I reject the Lockean notion of “rights”. When I speak of “right”, I simply mean what is in accordance with justice, i.e., giving each his due.
During the trial, according to the accounts of Plato and Xenophon, Socrates defended himself against the charge of impiety, which was punishable by death in Athens: He has spent his life serving the god Apollo and Athens with his philosophy, showing that the Athenians were not wise and exhorting them to pursue wisdom, without requiring payments from anyone. Such conduct of life deserves reward, not punishment.
After he had been dealt the death sentence, however, when his friend urged him to escape, according to Plato’s account in Crito, Socrates defended the authority of the State, even the authority to put a citizen to death. His arguments are twofold:
The Parental Authority of the State
Parents have authority over their child because they have given life to their child, fed him and educated him, and raised him to adulthood. If nothing else, they have author-ity because they are the author of their child’s being. One could even argue that, since the parents have given life to their child, they have the right to take it back.
Similarly, the State has authority over a citizen, because it contributes a great deal to his coming into being: the citizen is born under the auspices of the State, fed and sheltered by her produces, educated and nurtured by her people, supported and protected by her laws.
The Social Contract
If a citizen thinks the laws of the State are unjust, he has many options at his disposal. He can try to convince the State that the laws are unjust, change the laws using legitimate means, or emigrate to another State. If he doesn’t do that, but remains in the State and enjoys its benefits, he has implicitly entered into a contract with the State, that is, he has agreed to abide by the laws of the State.
If jury trial is part of the judicial system of the State, a citizen is obligated to comply with the verdict reached through due process of law. If he escapes, he breaks the contract and commits an injustice.
Resolving Conflicting Rights
In the case of Socrates, we have a conflict of rights: On the one hand, Socrates has agreed to abide by the laws of the State. Justice demands that Socrates submit to the judgement of the law, or to put it differently, the State has a right to put Socrates to death; On the other hand, Socrates has done no wrong, but spent all his life providing a valuable service to Athens. Justice demands that Socrates lives, in other words, Socrates has a right to live.
There are different ways to resolve a conflict: One is violence, another is negotiation and compromise, yet another is arbitration. In arbitration, two sides resort to an objective third party, which would be the arbiter of justice between them, and its decision is final. One of the roles of the government is to arbitrate between the people.
For Socrates, the government itself is the opposing party, so he cannot resort to it for arbitration; He refuses to compromise as a matter of principle, because neither side gets justice in a compromise. Instead, he resorted to arbitration by a superior law, viz. the law that one ought to suffer wrong rather than do wrong.[1] He has abided by this law his entire adult life. For this reason, Socrates decided to submit to the death sentence, for he believes man ought to always act in accord with reason, even and especially in matters of life and death.[2]
Notes:
- ^1. For the philosophical and moral basis of this superior law, see “Crito” by Plato
- ^2. From a prudential perspective, Socrates also thought through what the consequences would be if he escaped from Athens and lived as a fugitive from justice. I suspect Aristotle suffered from these consequences, and that is why he lasted only one year after his escape.
Related Posts: