Socrates vs. MLK 250 ppr Essays - Ancient Greek Philosophy

What is Justice? Pols 250 Classical Political Philosophy Trinity Western University April 9, 2018 Sarah Dunn In the 21st century we watch injustice ensue, we endure police brutality, sexual harassment, segregation, racism, political leaders who either represent Machiavellian virtue or Aristotelian buffoonery and various other facets to injustice. Therefore, civil disobedience becomes a response to such issues, but this action promotes the question of whether or not it is our responsibility to respect the laws that we are governed under. Consequentially, Martin Luther King believes that civil disobedience is the appropriate response to injustice while Socrates believes it is detrimental to treat injustice with injustice. Initially, the notion of civil disobedience is represented by Socrates through The Apology and The Crito. During his trial Socrates was put on trial for atheism, his investigation of things below and aloft of the Earth, his education to younger students, and the corruption of the youth of Athens. Furthermore, he claimed that the Oracle had given him a divine calling which caused him to cross-examine and contradict everyone he spoke with; cross-examination consumed him for 23 years. Therefore, since Socrates relates his identity to his cross-examination the court believes that his accusations would halt if he stopped cross-examination; but he claims that he would break any law that was unjust. This conclusion arises the thought the accusations he was charged for we unjust laws that he justly broke. Then in The Crito, Crito pays off all of the guards and allows Socrates to leave, but Socrates refuses because he believes that injustice must be treated with justice; he vies for civil obedience and argues that it is the responsibility of the citizens to abide by the laws that the government enforces. It is clear that Socrates contradicts himself, but it is unclear what he believes about governmental sovereignty and the arbitrary power of legislation in a republic. Furthermore, Socrates refuses to disobey the law or bend the constitutional boundaries that citizens are confined within. In fact, he believes that the state suffers from his execution rather than himself; they face Socratic dualism while Socrates faces the greatest good. Socrates argues that by disobeying the law in The Crito, one is destroying the law and disintegrating the authority that it once had. Although he opposes himself in these two accounts it represents the unreliability that Plato has over Socrates and represents a philosophy with no grounding. He argues that unjust laws must be followed to have such laws remain authoritative and powerful, but why should unjust laws hold power? Why should injustice have jurisdiction over a polis? Also, it should be noted that Socrates wanted his death to be a spectacle to gain political support. Thus, this notion takes away from his philosophy since he actions were motivated by selfishness and personal glory. Socrates' death was supposed to allow him to become eternal and live through his death, but he knew that he had to die as a spectacle for that to occur. Then in The Crito, he dismisses Crito's devotion to him and claims that disobeying the laws is a great injustice. Socrates tells Crito that if he escapes the prison that it will demolish Athens because his escape will undermine the strength of the law and the authority of Homer/Apollo. The Crito established the basis for undermining a regime, Socrates claims that he cannot break the law because it is divine and it is omnipotent, but he contradicts himself when Athens is at war and during his trial. During one of the battles that Socrates fought in, Athens and Sparta were at war. This battle had started because Athens wan ted to create an empire and Sparta started a war over this; representing that Socrates went to war for an unjust reason because of his obligation to his fatherland. Overall, Socrates contradicts himself through his arguments between the trial and his execution; which does not make him a credible source for civil disobedience and establishes his uncertainty on civil disobedience. Consequentially, Socrates' argument for civil disobedience is irrational and confusing which leaves uncertainty regarding Socratic wisdom; he seems to believe more in civil obedience. Although we have consented to be governed and have allowed ourselves to leave the state of