Socrates' Admission: Law-Breaking And Philosophy

Socrates' thoughts on justice and obedience to the law were motivated by a desire to avoid the destructive effects of Sophistic criticisms and theories of laws. He advocated for absolute obedience to the law, as long as it respected the legal system of the city. However, he did not believe that a law was just simply because it was a law; he sought true justice. Socrates' philosophy did not accept that two equally justified and legitimate rights or moral values could conflict.

Socrates' obedience to the law was motivated by a desire to avoid the destructive effects of Sophistic theories and criticisms of laws

Socrates' obedience to the law was not blind, however. He made a distinction between human laws and higher orders of justice, such as divine laws and natural laws. He recognised that human laws were fallible and could be in conflict with divine or natural laws. Nonetheless, he prioritised obedience to human laws to avoid the dangers of Sophistic thought, which included legal positivism and natural law theories. Socrates' position can be summarised as follows: it is not because laws are just that one should obey them, but simply because they are laws.

Socrates' obedience to the law was also influenced by his belief in the existence of higher non-human laws, such as divine laws and natural laws. He did not see these higher laws as being in conflict with human laws but rather as complementary. He believed that human laws should be obeyed as long as they did not contradict these higher laws. This position allowed him to avoid the pitfalls of both legal positivism and natural law theories.

In conclusion, Socrates' obedience to the law was motivated by a desire to avoid the destructive effects of Sophistic theories and criticisms. He advocated for an almost absolute obedience to human laws while also recognising the existence of higher laws that took precedence when they conflicted with human laws.

Socrates required absolute obedience to the law, as long as it respected the legal system of the city

Socrates' thoughts on justice and obedience to the law were motivated by a desire to avoid the destructive effects of Sophistic criticisms and theories of laws. He thus requires an almost absolute obedience to the law, as long as it respects the legal system of the city. However, Socrates would not admit that a law is just simply because it is a law. He is looking for true justice.

Socrates' principle of obedience is subject to several conditions. Firstly, the rule to which it applies must be an actual law, not a decree, order, or any other decision of the sovereign or court that would be contrary to the law. Secondly, the citizen should always have the freedom to leave the city and thus end their contract with the laws. Lastly, the citizen should have the right to discuss the laws.

Socrates' position regarding laws and obedience should be understood in the context of the theses he fights against: Sophistic theories and their criticisms of laws. He wants to avoid two dangers: legal positivism, which leads to relativism, and natural law theories, which cannot give a sure content to justice.

Socrates' thought is of remarkable originality. While asserting the existence of higher, non-human laws, he does not make one order prevail over the other. His first priority is to avoid hazardous Sophistic conclusions.

Socrates did not believe a law was just simply because it was a law

Socrates' thoughts on justice and obedience to the law were motivated by a desire to avoid the destructive effects of Sophistic criticisms and theories of laws. He advocated for absolute obedience to the law, as long as the law respected the legal system of the city. However, he did not believe that a law was just simply because it was a law. Instead, he sought the true Just.

Socrates' philosophy was a reaction to the dangers he perceived in Sophistic thought. He wanted to avoid two dangers: legal positivism, which leads to relativism and makes man the measure of all things, and natural law theories, which cannot provide a sure foundation for justice and weaken the authority of laws and the city.

Socrates' position on obedience and justice is complex. While he advocated for absolute obedience to the laws of the city, he also sought what he called the "good laws", believing that justice was inscribed in the order of nature. He introduced the idea of higher, non-human laws that existed alongside human laws, but he did not make one order prevail over the other. Instead, he emphasised the importance of obedience, not as a relative value, but as an absolute one.

Socrates' views on obedience and justice were shaped by his desire to restore respect for the laws in the face of Sophistic criticisms. He believed that obedience to the law was necessary for social order and the very existence of the city. However, he also recognised the limitations of human laws and sought a higher standard of justice.

Socrates could not accept that two equally legitimate moral values could conflict

In the Apology, Socrates presents his defence against the charges of corrupting the youth and not believing in the gods of the state. One of the key issues that arises in his defence is his understanding of morality and the relationship between different moral values. Socrates firmly believed in the concept of objective morality, the idea that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of societal norms or cultural relativism. This belief is evident in his famous statement, "I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think." Socrates felt that moral truths were universal and eternal, discovered through rational inquiry and dialogue, rather than simply accepted or imposed by authority.

This belief in objective morality leads to one of the central tensions in Socrates' philosophy: his inability to accept that two equally legitimate moral values could conflict. In other words, Socrates held that true moral principles could never contradict each other. For example, in the Crito, Socrates discusses the relationship between justice and obedience to the state. He argues that one should always act justly, even if it means going against the laws or expectations of society. Socrates' commitment to objective morality leads him to conclude that justice is a higher moral principle than obedience to the state, and therefore, if the two come into conflict, one should prioritize justice.

This perspective is further illustrated in Socrates' attitude towards democracy and the rule of law. While he lived in a democratic Athens, Socrates was often critical of the decisions made by the democratic assembly, particularly when they conflicted with his sense of justice and morality. Notably, in the Apology, Socrates accepts the verdict of the court, even though he disagrees with it, because he believes in the rule of law and the importance of abiding by the city's legal processes. However, he refuses to accept the court's demand that he stop engaging in philosophical inquiry, as he sees this as a violation of his conscience and a higher moral duty.

Socrates' stance on this issue has significant implications. It suggests that he believed in a hierarchical ordering of moral values, with some principles taking precedence over others. For Socrates, certain values, such as justice, truth, and virtue, were fundamental and non-negotiable. If a situation arose where these core values conflicted with other moral considerations, Socrates would unwaveringly side with the fundamental values. This perspective reflects his conviction that morality is rooted in reason and that a rational examination of conflicting values should lead to a clear resolution, with one value taking precedence over the other.

However, this belief in the non-confliction of equally legitimate moral values also presents a challenge. It raises the question of how one should navigate situations where two moral principles seem to clash irresolvably. Socrates' response to this dilemma appears to be his commitment to conscience and the individual's responsibility to act according to their rationally derived moral understanding. In the Crito, for instance, Socrates justifies his refusal to escape from prison, despite the pleas of his friends, by arguing that he must act in accordance with his understanding of justice, even if it leads to his death.

Socrates' principle of obedience was subject to certain conditions

Socrates' principle of obedience was explicit and imperative. However, the practical application of this principle raised numerous problems. Socrates disobeyed orders of rulers and mocked their decisions. His sarcastic answers when opposing the Thirty Tyrants and his resolute attitude in front of the Athenian Assembly did not contradict the principle of obedience he constantly defended. This principle was submitted to precise conditions that were stated in different texts. Whenever the conditions were fulfilled, Socrates upheld his principle: the law should be obeyed as such, not as being just. This attitude should be understood as a reaction to the dangers that Socrates perceived in Sophistic thought.

Socrates' thought becomes more complex when considering that human laws are not the only rules that men must obey. Socrates did not limit his thought about justice to legality. He distinguished between:

• The conflict between the divine order and a hypothetical injunction of the court in the Apology
• The more general distinction between divine and human laws which appears in other dialogues and in Xenophon’s works

Socrates' attitude towards the laws can be understood by pursuing three lines of inquiry:

• Using Xenophon’s testimony, which is often compatible with Plato’s on the issue
• Keeping in mind what Socrates opposes—Sophistic conclusions—and thus characterising the position of the philosopher negatively
• Making clear distinctions between laws, orders, decrees, court judgments, divine mission and divine or natural laws

Socrates affirms a principle of absolute obedience to the laws in Plato and Xenophon. Scholars who hope to discover a defence of civil disobedience in Socratic thought tend to trivialise these texts and offer two arguments to justify their claim:

• Socrates’ refusal to obey the Thirty Tyrants
• His attitude during the trial of the generals of Arginusae

However, these examples do not diminish the value of the principle of obedience advocated by Socrates. They allow us to clarify this general principle, for it is always on the basis of the law, or of the legal system, that the philosopher justifies his actions.

The general principle of obedience is emphasised in Xenophon and Plato. Socrates stresses the necessity of laws and the obedience of citizens to ensure social order and the very existence of the city. Even if laws are inaccurately interpreted or lead to injustice, Socrates claims that it is still necessary to comply with them. After being sentenced to death, Socrates refused his friends’ offer to help him escape because he believed that the cohesion of the city and its whole existence depend on obedience to laws.

The principle of obedience is subject to several conditions:

• The rule must be an actual law, not a decree, order, or any other decision of the Sovereign or court that would be contrary to the law
• The citizen shall always have the freedom to leave the city and thus end the contract
• The citizen shall have the absolute right to discuss the laws

Socrates' position regarding laws and obedience should be understood in respect of the theses he fights—Sophistic theories and their criticisms of laws. The Sophistic movement initiated two opposed "schools" of thought:

• One based on the intuitions of Protagoras
• One based on the intuitions of Hippias

Socrates wanted to avoid two dangers:

• Legal positivism that leads to relativism and makes man the measure of all things, including justice
• Natural laws theories, which cannot give a sure content to justice, but simply weaken the authority of laws and the city itself

Socrates sought to keep:

• From legal positivism, the principle of obedience to the laws despite their contingency
• From natural laws theories, the belief in the existence of a greater Justice

By giving specific conditions to obedience, Socrates escapes the dangers of legal positivism.

Frequently asked questions