Civil Disobedience, Essay Example

Civil disobedience refers to a non-violent, conscientious and public breach of the law, which is mainly undertaken with the aim of bringing change in the government policies or laws. Based on this, individuals who engage themselves in the act of civil disobedience are always willing to accept the legal outcomes or consequences of their various actions since this reveals their fidelity to the state or national law. Given its place at the bridge of fidelity to the law, civil disobedience falls between the legal protest and conscientious refusal militant protest, revolutionary action, and organized forcible resistance. Currently, in many sections of the world, protests and demonstrations are termed very efficient ways of communicating opposition to the government acts that are believed to be civil rights violations. Nonetheless, Socrates, in 399BC argued that civil disobedience was not appropriate. He became convinced that his social contract theory or philosophy was absolutely justified by the fact that he chose death rather than live so that he become a typical example to other people who were faced with the similar situation. Whereas the existing relationship between civil disobedience and law breaking is sometimes challenging to establish, there are features that make civil disobedience differ from law breaking. Subsequent sections of this paper discusses the reasons behind the claims that Socrates was indeed a prototypical civil disobedient.

While Socrates faces imprisonment following his conviction of corruption of the young and atheism and sentenced to death via poison, his wealthy friend and student named Crito visit him. Considering that his trial as well as sentencing of his followers had been fruitlessly trying to convince him so that he could allow them to intervene or arbitrate on his behalf, Socrates seems to be aware of his fault and believes that he deserve punishments. In addition, his friend Crito tries to convince him so that he can escape suffering and death in prison but Socrates boldly refuses. Crito goes ahead asking him why he would prefer dying in prison rather than escaping. Socrates’ answer seems surprising, unrealistic but a bit sensible as far as patriotism and loyalty are concerned. In his answer, Socrates states that the situation at hand was abut justice and injustice far from life and death. According to Socrates’ beliefs, despite the fact that he never agreed, his city’s judicial system tried to convict him of a crime and he had no choice but to obey and abide by the court’s decision. In other words, he believed he was a civil disobedient.

Notably, Socrates assertion and remarks on the just man in a society having no survival chance in the field of politics is characterized by a tortured history. In essence, his remarks have highly antidemocratic history. Unfortunately, Socrates’ case is not highly compelling. There is a remarkable tension existing between the context of Apology and that of the Republic. Socrates is not that a defender of democracy from his claim that he pays his respect to the gods whom he considers more powerful than the rulers of the land. In disobeying the gods, some of his behaviors violates the rule of the land thus making him become a civil disobedient. Analytically, Socrates’ life was based on the concepts of avoidance of injustice as well as a practical manner of skeptical investigation, which in turn shame his contemporaries. In addition, his recognized bouts with the then popular politicians depict Socrates’ beliefs on his philosophy, which mostly conflicted with that of the government. With this, Socrates displays his civil disobedience side. His aim is to satisfy his quest for fulfillment of his philosophy. Socrates practices and behaviors render him civil disobedience based on the way he behaves. Many philosophers believe that civil disobedient individual is a majority of one. A civil disobedient individual would always love to see his or her ideas and plans executed by none but him or her. A civil disobedient person is an individual resistor of the popularly accepted state law.

Socrates’ civil disobedience is also comparable to other notable global historical personalities such as Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi, whom were also civil disobedient persons. Socrates asserted that it is far much better to suffer injustice than doing it. In other words, he believes that suffering because of injustice is more important than doing injustice. This concept is also notable by the founder of India, Mahatma Gandhi. In fact, Socrates assertion is far more of a precursor to the Gandhi’s and King’s ideas and concepts of nonviolence.Gandhian way of living, as a normal civil disobedient, involves preparation as well as willingness to die. In other words, one takes the violence of the oppressors so that they can easily stop them change them. Notably, Gandhi used to tell his wife that he would never hit 40 years before his death. As one important feature of civil disobedience, it is notable that most civil disobedient like Socrates disobey the societal rules indirectly and insist on doing what they do irrespective of the consequences. Essentially, from the aforementioned perspective, it is evident that Socrates was indeed a civil disobedient person. His characters, behaviors and beliefs about life were typically similar to the world’s known civil disobedient personalities such as Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi.

In the central essence of his arguments and beliefs, Socrates defended and exemplified asking of questions while doing his philosophy. He was a philosopher, evidently a practically minded philosopher who loved to see things the way he imagined them they would be. His continuous and enormous threatening to the powerful individuals in the land depicts him as a courageous man willing to die of his conscience. Socrates understood very well that standing up for philosophy and facing the trial would obviously lead to an eternal effect. His belief is the same with Gandhi’s assertion that going down the line for anything good and right is actually a worthy way to die. In his apology to Apollo, he compiles a critical letter based on the charges against him that he disbelieves in the gods of Athens. He explains to Apollo the reason why the majority is wrong yet he is right. His main aim is to change the way things are done in Athens. He does not believe in the Athenian gods. This, according to the society, sounds blasphemous and disrespect to the higher authority of the land.

In conclusion, Socrates was a civil disobedient based on the way he handled everything in Athens. Being a philosopher, he questioned virtually every kind of practice portrayed by the people of Athens. He portrays similar features and characteristics portrayed by other known civil obedient individuals.