Socrates Defense of Athenian Law - Research Paper Example

Module Philosophy: Socrates Defense of Athenian Law and C.S. Lewis' Critique of ivism In both the ‘Apology’ and ‘Crito’, Plato represents Socrates as a staunch defender of law, particularly in the sense that respect for the legal order of one’s polity is a basic obligation of citizenship. What are the most important reasons Socrates provides for this position in defense of Athenian law? If we accept Lewis’ critique of emotional subjectivism (Gaius and Titius’ position) in ‘Abolition of Man’ as sound, we cannot interpret Socrates’ actions as merely the result of his subjective feelings. Why would Lewis insist that we interpret Plato’s Socrates in this way? Socrates was an Athenian who firmly believed that the system of the law under which the jury was acting was fair. The city of Athen’s tribunal sat to bestow justice in accordance with the city’s regulations. From the outset of his trial, Socrates declared that, “I must observe the law and make my defense” (Plato 35c). Owing to the fact that he openly admitted the purpose and nature of his lifetime activities, Socrates' case would appear to be based on a matter of interpretation instead of fact. Socrates stated that his teaching, contrary to corrupting the morals of the youth, had actually made Athens become a better state. He would assert in the faces of his accusers that, “My teaching is the bidding of the gods; and I believe that the city has actually benefitted from my service to the gods” (Plato 30a). Even after being pronounced guilty, Socrates made it clear that he respected the views of the legitimate city authorities and would obey their sentence. He said this even though he was aware that he had been unjustly accused. This shows just how much he believed that the Athenian legal system was the foundation of the Athenian city state and had to be valued. The Athenian legal system had a distinct method of trying accused persons. First, a citizen would summon the person he was accusing to appear before the resident magistrate. Socrates accusers were Lycon, Meletus, and Anytus. In the ‘Apology’ Socrates states that Meletus accused him on behalf of the local poets, Anytus did so on behalf of craftsmen, and Lycon represented the orators (Apology 23e). The Euthyphro provides evidence that Meletus was a young Athenian who did not know Socrates on a personal level (Euthyphr 2b). After hearing both the defense and the charges, it was decided that there was need for an initial hearing. In Athenian trials, citizen volunteers would function as the jurors. They were usually paid for their services after being chosen by lot. To ensure that there was no possibility of bribery or jury tampering, the juries were usually quite large. Socrates’ case, for example, was presented before 500 jurors. Socrates felt that if he had actually been found guilty of crossing the laws, then he deserved the sentence that would be meted out. Socrates' greatest argument against ignoring the court’s decision and fleeing Athens lay in the fact that his existence in the jurisdiction of Athens was an admission of a contract between Athenian authorities and him to observe its laws. Owing to this fact, fleeing from Athens without permission or notification to the authorities would actually be violating the laws of the land and participating in ‘wrong’ actions- which was the direct opposite of the ‘goodness’ that he believed in. Socrates had always been a forthright advocate for the Athenian political and legal system. Owing to the agreement between him and the city authorities, he was also the beneficiary of an unknown quantity of benefits. Moreover, for him to fully enjoy the benefits of what was provided to him by the city of Athens, he had to in return give up something. In this case, it was his freedom of choice and action where there was a clash between his personal views and the stipulations of Athenian law. The Athenian legal system had a modicum of fairness in its dealings with citizens. Given that the occupation of philosophizing was inherently dangerous as it could cause citizens to question the stipulations of the state, it would seem logical for the state to forbid this past time. Moreover, it did not. If it had, Socrates would probably have disobeyed that particular law. Socrates’ accusers charged him with something forbidden by the state: indulging in “scientific discourse on supernatural matters” (Apology 19b). Socrates, however, insisted to the jurors that he only partook in discussions concerning issues concerning justice and other important issues. According to Athenian law, if any individual did not agree with a particular regulation, he had the right to try and persuade the state to accept his side of things. The state also allowed for citizens who felt constrained by any of the city’s laws to leave and find more accommodating places in which to leave. If the citizen’s quarrel with the state could not be solved by either persuasion or blind obedience of the city law, then the state had a responsibility to pronounce its final judgment on the citizen. Socrates, in the estimation of his accusers, had neglected to obey what they perceived to be the correct interpretation of the state laws by obeying them or leaving the city to seek for other places to live. According to Lewis, there are objective values that he views as being moral or natural laws (Lewis 43). It would appear that Socrates embraced the same ideas though based in different circumstances. According to Socrates, the understanding of an individual’s own ignorance is necessary when an individual starts on the path of seeking the truth, even though it is not the final destination. Socrates’ slightly different view of values is stated in ‘Crito’. From his dialogue, it is evident that Socrates favored the perception of the existence of an objective truth that could be attained through the soul, which was thought to be independent of the mind. Socrates believed that the core self of any man was a principally intellectual aspect. This is evident in many instances in his discourse in Crito. For example, Socrates attempted to persuade Crito that life becomes basically worthless if one is trapped within a corrupted body (Plato 46e). Socrates and Lewis also shared similar beliefs in the matter of the abilities of the soul. Lewis stated that reason would only be able to rule over the body’s appetites if it had assistance from the spirit (Lewis, 19). Socrates had similar views. Socrates observed that “the part of us, whatever it is, which has to do with injustice and justice- which is the spirit- is much more important than the physical body (Crito 47e-48a). From his words, it is obvious that not only did Socrates believe in the existence of a spirit, but believed that any damage to the spirit was much worse, in the long run, than any damage to a person’s physical body. His sincere belief in this concept was something he would later demonstrate when he chose to die for his beliefs instead of choosing to change his views- thus denting his spirit- so that the authorities would spare his life. This does not mean that Socrates was flippantly dismissing the destruction of the body; he was merely saying that it ranked lower than the spirit in importance. According to Socrates, one could only harm another if he could successfully cause him to abandon the true principles of justice and goodness. When Socrates speaks of his decision to remain in Athens in spite of the danger to his physical life, he addresses the fact that he is aware that he has the choice of leaving should he choose to do so. Moreover, it would appear that he refused to do so in order not to wound his own spirit by fleeing in order not to face the consequences of standing for what is right. In addition, Socrates feared that challenging the laws of Athens in regards to his stand would merely result in compromising or weakening the city state further. Socrates had previously observed to Crito that a city which is unable to enforce its regulations no longer governs. Socrates actually believed that defending himself, even though he was obviously right, was not as important or moral or just as using all methods within his means to preserve the integrity of the city’s legal system. Given that this was a deeply held belief within his soul, Socrates obviously felt that representing any other type of truth would soil his own spirit. Thus, he chose to go as far as emphasizing on this deeply held truth by demonstrating that even his physical life did not have as much meaning as it. In choosing to die rather than cause the compromise of the city’s legal system, Socrates would inspire his fellow men to seriously consider the truth of his words on the importance of maintaining one’s purity of spirit. The estimation of the spirit above the soul (reason) and the body shows that both men supported objectivism over subjectivism. According to Lewis, subjectivism can impinge on reality at any time for a varied number of reasons. In doing this, it is quite easy for subjectivism to seek to change reality according to its own perceptions, instead of seeking to alter itself in the shape of reality. Socrates actions, from the time of his trial to that of his execution, were not the result of subjectivism on his part. He held a purely objective understanding of concepts like love, justice, self-knowledge, virtue, and, most important of all, goodness (Lewis 17). He esteemed this understanding even above the interpretations that Athenians gave of how the gods defined purity and goodness. In the Euthyphro, Socrates disagreed with Euthyphro’s suggestion that piety could be described as ‘what the gods all esteem’. Socrates eventually got Euthyphro to admit that it is not because they are esteemed by the Greek deities that things acquire the character of piousness. In truth, things are esteemed by the gods due to the fact that they are pious. This shows that Socrates was not basing his arguments on subjectivity, as defined by Lewis, but on objectivity. Works Cited Lewis, Clive Staples. The Abolition of Man. New York: HarperOne Publishers, 2009. Plato. Plato's Apology and Crito: With Notes... Charleston: Nabu Press, 2012. Read More