elneely: Plato - the Crito

Erica Neely (

elneely) wrote,
@ 2005-08-30 22:47:00

Plato - the Crito
Plato's Crito seems to me to be the first explicit example of social contract theory. Socrates argues that since the state has raised and educated him, he owes it obedience; furthermore, by remaining in the state when he is free to leave (and suffer no harm by doing so), he has agreed implicitly to be bound by the rules of the state. This is a social contract.

Question: what should we do if the state is unjust?

Thought: since Socrates argues that it is wrong for him to escape even if his imprisonment is unjust, presumably the injustice of the state does not permit a citizen to act unjustly in return. (He argues that if someone is acting unjustly against him, at least he has done no wrong; if he acts unjustly in return, then he has done a wrong.)

Question: what would Socrates make of civil disobedience? Is he, in fact, merely exhibiting it in his own behavior? After all, part of civil disobedience is accepting the consequences of your actions.

(Post a new comment)

otherdeb
2005-08-31 04:18 am UTC (link)

"Question: what would Socrates make of civil disobedience? Is he, in fact, merely exhibiting it in his own behavior? After all, part of civil disobedience is accepting the consequences of your actions."

Well, yeah, but...another part of civil disobedience is that it is generally a premeditated act. And if Socrates does not make the attempt to either escape or retaliate against an unjust regime, I don;t think that you can say he is committing civil disobedience.

The question I have is, "Does positing thoughts that are different from/inimical to the thoughts of your society at large count as civil disobedience, or does it only count that way when one tries to spread those thoughts (as in teaching them) or when one tries to get tohers to take actions based on the differing thoughts?"

(Reply to this)(Thread)

elneely
2005-08-31 01:59 pm UTC (link)

Well, yeah, but...another part of civil disobedience is that it is generally a premeditated act. And if Socrates does not make the attempt to either escape or retaliate against an unjust regime, I don;t think that you can say he is committing civil disobedience.

The Crito is about Socrates trying to decide whether he should escape (at least in part). He goes about deciding this through a process of rational deliberation and reaches the conclusion that he should not escape. If he goes to the trouble of carefully thinking this through, it must count as premeditation...so why isn't this the equivalent of, say, a sit-in? He knows what action he's taking (staying there) and what the punishment will be (death) and thus chooses to accept the punishment. What's missing to be civil disobedience?

The question I have is, "Does positing thoughts that are different from/inimical to the thoughts of your society at large count as civil disobedience, or does it only count that way when one tries to spread those thoughts (as in teaching them) or when one tries to get tohers to take actions based on the differing thoughts?"

Well, at least practically speaking, there generally must be some outward expression of the thoughts for them to be punishable, since we can't read people's minds. There was a king that made it treason to think bad thoughts about him, but obviously that law was kind of hard to enforce.

I'm not sure it's necessary to get others to take actions based on the differing thoughts, though; what about if you have the thoughts (even if unexpressed) and choose to act on them yourself? Would that be sufficient?

Keep the thoughts coming...

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	madfilkentist 2005-08-31 04:57 pm UTC (link)
	Isn't the key factor of civil disobedience missing: Willfully breaking a law? The law requires him to remain in prison and accept the death penalty. He does that. The teaching for which he was sentenced might have been considered civil disobedience, but I don't think this is the point you're making. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	osewalrus 2005-08-31 06:13 pm UTC (link)
	Indeed, Socrates regards his conviction as unjust (as demonstrated in the Apologia), rather than as a deliberate act of provication against the state. (Reply to this)(Parent)

tigertoy
2005-08-31 05:11 am UTC (link)

I hope it's OK for me to open my mouth here even though I am woefully ignorant with respect to the thoughts and writings of the great philosophers.

If the state is unjust, I would assume that it is the citizen's duty to work within the rules of the state to try to make it become just. If the rules of the state do not allow the citizen any avenue to argue that the state is unjust or to suggest improvement, the state is fundamentally corrupt; the citizen no longer owes it any duties, but must instead answer to his duties as a person to himself and to the other people in the state as people. If the state does allow the citizen some means to speak against injustice, but those means are completely ineffective, then the citizen faces a true ethical dilemma: at what point is the citizen's redress so unhelpful that it must be considered a sham, or in other words, at what point is the state fundamentally corrupt despite retaining some trappings of legitimacy?

While I did admit at the start that I haven't read Plato, I did have the benefit of a class that discussed the death of Socrates somewhere along the line. (I recall the class as a whole feeling that it was a remarkably stupid thing for someone who's supposed to be the smartest man who ever lived to have done to insult the people and dare them to impose the death sentence.) But the sense that I got is that Socrates essentially was engaging in civil disobedience, so I assume he would approve, as long as the disobedient citizen is truly willing to accept the consequences.

(Reply to this)

Do you include diety-centered social contract as "social contract" theory?

osewalrus
2005-08-31 06:22 pm UTC (link)

Even assuming a final date of redaction of approx. 580 b.c.e. for the Old Testement(and, in any eventm certain pieces such as Deut. date significantly earlier) why do you exclude the O.T., particularly Deut., from the theory of social contract?

Deut. (and elsewhere) establish a social contract between Israel and God for possession of the land of Canaan. Deut. rejects an approach based on historic occupation of inherent virtue by Israel. Deut. mandates an annual submission/fealty ceremony of "My father was a wandering Aramaen, whom God brought from over the river and gave this land."

Under the terms of the contract, Israel obey God's law and God rewards them with possession of the land, material propserity, security, progeny, and long life. Failure to obey the commandments of God (which encompase the realm of what we would now recognize as secular civil and criminal law) results in the opposite -- material suffering, foreign invasion, and ultimate expulsion.

It is perfectly reasonable to distinguish between a purely secular social contract theory and one centered on a diety. Indeed, one can argue that the point of social contract theory is precisely to escape a supernatural basis for morality and ground morality firmly in secular reason. I was merely curious if this was deliberate on your part and, if so, the rationale.

(Reply to this)

"What Should We Do if the state is unjust?"

osewalrus
2005-08-31 06:27 pm UTC (link)

That is entirely dependent on the nature of the social contract. Many societies include recognized mechanisms within the society to address perceived injustice, as well as a gray area that we regard as "civil disobediance" (accepted within the society although carrying consequences) and an area wholly outside of the mainstream society even if more widely accepted by those excluded from the power structure. For example, in the United States, editorializing against the actions of the government and urging people to vote against the elected representatives is considered an appropriate means of addressing unjust state action. Non-violent civil disobediance, such as closing down public thoroughfares, is technically against the law and carries consequences but is tolerated even within the law. Violent protest, such as terrorist bombings, are regarded as wholly immoral except by that segment of the populatrion outside the mainstream that embracess such actions as legitimate for whatever reason.

(Reply to this)

Mini Sitemap:

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…