Download
1 / 17
170 likes | 595 Vues
In this Powerpoint I discuss a way to interpret Plato's Crito: Socrates subverts the law by disobeying it and accepting the punishment. In other words, Socrates both disobeys AND obeys the law.
E N D
Plato on Justice Crito
Who is Socrates? Imagine the most annoying person in the world, who is always causing disputes amongst your friends. Who smells bad, is fat, and has no appreciation of day-to-day routine. And, who believes their mission is to annoy you with questions and observations and have you to think and act in ways that are not fitting for society.
Big Context of Crito: What is Justice? Freedom to be (and discover) who one is seems undermined by laws and their enforcement which infringe on the process of self-discovery for wildly ethical beings like Socrates. But, laws and their enforcement protect the process of self-discovery from others who might be viewed as corrupting that process.
Example: “LIBERAL” VS. “CONSERVATIVE” AMERICA LIBERAL POLITICIANS seem concerned mostly with social justice initiatives: rights equality, fair wage, etc. CONSERVATIVE POLITICIANS seem concerned mostly with ‘freedom’ initiatives: gun use, free market, etc.
NARROWER CONTEXT: An origination dilemma for a theory of justice of the state vs. the individual • People either require a just state to become just, or a state requires just people to be just. (J v S) • If people require a just state, then there are only unjust people in unjust states. (J -> U) • If a state requires just people to become just, then there is no way for people to first become just and so everyone is unjust. (S -> E) • So, either there are only unjust people in unjust states, or there are only unjust people (U v E)
Socrates’ Context: He is just, the state is not. “Men of Athens, I am grateful and I am your friend, but I will obey the god rather than you, and as long as I draw breath and am able, I shall not cease to practice philosophy.” (Apology) Socrates, even with these convictions to be authentic, desires to respect the opinions of others, particularly those “experts” who sentenced him to death whom he disagrees with, even though Socrates himself finds them to be unjust. WHY? Because, to break the law, even though it is unjust, is still unjust. “Even if one is unjustly treated, one should not return injustice, as most people believe—given that one should act not unjustly at all. (14)
Socrates’ Context: He is just, the state is not. Call Socrates’ context the “Parent Problem” Parent Problem: Kids do things to express themselves and sometimes these actions appear to break parental rules when they actually are following the rules. So, kids might be just, but the parental coercion is unjust. In addition, kids want to respect their parents (and avoid further trouble) so they accept the appearance of breaking parental rules.
Who is Crito in all this? Antagonist! Crito betrays his own unjust ways with his arguments to convince Socrates to escape prison: • Crito will bribe others to aid in the escape. • The justices that gave Socrates a death sentence WANT him to escape. • Socrates’ familial duties will, says Crito, be unsatisfied.
Socrates’ resolution: Obedience to the laws of the state. “Suppose, just as I was about to run…the Laws were to appear and ask: “…In trying to do this, can’t you see that you are trying to destroy us, the Laws, and the whole state…?” In the “parent problem” context, this is a coherent response. In fact, Socrates goes on to explain how the state was his parent and he owes his beliefs and way of being to the state. So, he cannot betray the state.
Objection: The State’s Laws Are Unjust! The state unjustly prosecuted Socrates so, as Crito explained, justice supports his decision to escape. “An Unjust Law is NOT a Law” (Aquinas)
Socrates’ Response: Just People obey laws! A just soul cannot disobey the laws of the state which produced the justice in the first place. “The Laws might say, perhaps, “…the disobedient man does wrong in three ways when he disobeys us: firstly, because we are his parents, secondly, we are his nurturers, and thirdly, because he agreed to obey us.” (543-4)
Contradiction!!! “Men of Athens, I am grateful and I am your friend, but I will obey the god rather than you, and as long as I draw breath and am able, I shall not cease to practice philosophy.” (Apology) “Suppose, just as I was about to run…the Laws were to appear and ask: “…In trying to do this, can’t you see that you are trying to destroy us, the Laws, and the whole state…?” (Crito)
Or Subversion???!!! “Men of Athens, I am grateful and I am your friend, but I will obey the god rather than you, and as long as I draw breath and am able, I shall not cease to practice philosophy.” (Apology) “Suppose, just as I was about to run…the Laws were to appear and ask: “…In trying to do this, can’t you see that you are trying to destroy us, the Laws, and the whole state…?” (Crito)
Newtonian gravitation, Boyle’s gas, or Mendel’s peas, each surpass the bounds of their respective current scientific methodologies. • Maradonareaches out his “Hand of God” or when basketball coach Nelson uses fouls to “Hack-a-Shaq” or when Perry puts a curve on pitching with his “Spitball,” or when the football magician Kam Chancellor’s leaps over the offensive line to block a field-goal or basketball player John Wall fakes the defense with his “yo-yo” or “extended” dribble the game not only comes alive, but changes.
Might Socrates be subverting rather than committing a contradiction???? • Disobeying the law, but noting that part of the law is punishment for offense, and so Socrates accepts the punishment.
Summary Of Socrates: Laws trump Conscience. The state’s justice overrides a person’s justice. This suggests a solution to the dilemma: Justice originates in the state and makes just people.
