Obedience to the State, Essay Example

In the dialogue Crito written by Plato, the author, through the mouth of Socrates, presents a complex argument about why individuals are to be obedient to the state, or in other words a government or authority structure. From our contemporary perspective, Plato’s argument at first glance appears to be totalitarian in nature: does simply being obedient to the State not imply the danger of supporting a form of tyranny that opposes individual human rights? It would seem to our era that Plato’s argument discourages us from being critical towards politics, and this would seem to be an argument against many democratic values that we take to be self-evident. Plato appears to represent a fascist. However, is this Plato’s real argument? Does obedience to the state mean that we should be nothing more than slaves to the state? Plato obviously has his own logic to making his argument. This argument is based upon, in my interpretation, the idea that Plato feels that all authority figures have some type of legitimacy, otherwise they would not be authority figures. In other words, Plato thinks that the reason any type of authority and politics exists is because they are based on some type of ethics, and that they therefore have some type of concept of justice. Against this interpretation, the following paper shall criticize Plato’s claim by advancing arguments that try to show that just because an authority exists in a position of authority, this does not mean that this authority is legitimate.

As a philosopher, Plato often argues for the importance of questioning various forms of authority. This would appear to contradict with the arguments he makes for obeying the state in the Crito dialogue. For example, as ______ notes, “this argument was surprising because in the Apology he made it quite clear that his mission to search for the truth was of more value than conforming to the laws of Athens. Even if the Athenians should order him to stop his activities, he would continue, because, as he so dramatically, put it, “the unexamined life is not worth living.” (160) In other words, there is a major contradiction here. Plato in the Crito states that one should obey the State, while in the Apology, he says no stone should be left unturned when we look for the truth. Are these claims consistent? It would seem that they are not, because the political authorities also form a part of our everyday existence, and to examine our life we would need to examine, which means to question, these authorities also.

To understand if this is a contradiction or not, we have to better understand Plato’s reasoning why he thinks we should obey the State in the Crito. The Crito dialogue takes place in the cell of Socrates, where Socrates is awaiting judgment for various crimes. The dialogue is a battle between Crito and Socrates essentially, since Crito urges Socrates to flee from his cell, while Socrates says that he should accept the punishment and remain in his cell. Socrates’ argument is based upon his own understanding of ethics, and he therefore views Crito’s solution as an unethical solution. Socrates gives his rebuttal in the form of a question: “When one has come to an agreement that is just with someone, should one fulfill it or cheat on it?” (Crito, 44) Socrates therefore views that his relationship to the State and the political system is a form of agreement: he has agreed to be a citizen of the State and the political system. Furthermore, Socrates understands this agreement to be a just agreement. In other words, because he is a citizen of the state of Athens, he must follow Athenian law. If he would flee from his cell like Crito suggests, this would be breaking the agreement he has made with the state of Athens.

Yet it is clear from Socrates’ own question that the only way this logic holds up is that if the agreement he makes with the State is a just agreement. Socrates says nothing about breaking an agreement that is not just as being an unethical act. Therefore, from this logic follows the idea that Socrates views his relationship to the political system as an ethical and just relationship. Socrates says to Crito that the commandment of the philosopher is to “never do wrong.” (Crito, 49b) The laws of the state and its particular rules are only extensions of the commandment to never do wrong. To never do wrong means to remain committed to all just agreements. In other words, agreements by themselves may be just or unjust. Therefore, we have to analyze our agreements, and if we think they are just, then it would mean that we are obliged to follow their consequences. By refuing to flee like Crito suggest, Socrates is therefore stating that he has analyzed the laws of Athens and thinks they are just. This is what he tells Crito when discussing the laws of Athens: “not one of our laws raises any obstacle or forbids him, if he is not satisfied with us or the city, if one of you wants to go and live in a colony.” (Crito, 51d) Socrates’ interpretation of the agreement he has made with Athens is based upon an idea of autonomy and individualism. Nothing prevented Socrates from ever leaving Athens if he did not wish to. This demonstrates that the laws of Athens are just, because they never restricted him in regards to his judgment of their legal system. In other words, Athenian law does not say these are the rules and you must follow them: rather, Athenian law states that if you do not approve of these laws you can go to another city-state to live. In this argument, the laws of Athens are just because they leave Socrates with his autonomy. Because Socrates has never left the city, despite being able to at any time, this means that he must accept responsibility for his actions. Socrates is not, therefore, saying that we should blindly follow authority, but rather if the rules maintain some type of justice, then we should follow them.

As I mentioned in the introduction, Socrates’ arguments are out of tune with our contemporary democratic values. Democracy often talks about checks and balances, and that we have to continually monitor what the authority figures are doing. In other words, democracy warns us that a political or authority structure can suddenly change, and we must continually monitor it. If a country had just laws that does not mean that the country will always remain just: as an example from the United States, we could mention the Patriot Act and how it appears to violate various liberties that already at one time existed in the United States. Democracy therefore identifies that laws can change and that the concept of justice which is supposed to support these laws are not always self-evident. Justice can be corrupted at any time, and this is why we must remain vigilant instead of merely obedient. It seems that Socrates fails to take into account that political systems can change, and that ideas of justice can be violated, even though these ideas of justice once existed.

At the same time, Socrates also seems to miss the point that a single political system can have some laws that are potentially just whereas other laws that are potentially unjust. For example, a particular country may have good laws regarding free speech, allowing people to voice their opinions, while also having racist laws that enforce segregation: we know this example from the United States itself. It seems that Socrates’ mistake here is to take an all or nothing type approach to law and justice. Either all the laws of a State are good and make up a just agreement, and therefore to be ethical we must accept them, or the entire system is corrupt. But this appears to be a simplification when we look at politics from a realistic perspective. Good laws and just laws can coexist with bad laws. Socrates fails to understand the difference between a just law, such as the Athenian state allowing him to leave whenever he so wishes, from a bad law, such as his imprisonment for practicing philosophy. Socrates overlooks the complexity of a political system, and takes a certain binary approach of just or unjust which fails to do justice to how politics and law really works.

How would Socrates argue against this interpretation of his thesis? I think Socrates would emphasize the notion of the just agreement. In other words, a state that had laws that are both good and bad cannot be considered as being based upon a just agreement between the authority figure and the citizen. Socrates thinks that any true law is based upon justice. In other words, Socrates does not think that we are obliged to the State, but rather that we obliged to justice. He makes this clear in the previous citation when he says, without exception, to “never do wrong.” The State is not the key point in his argument, but rather justice is the key point. If a State is just, so be it: there is no reason, however, why a State my be unjust. But if the State is just, then we must be sure to follow its rules, because then we are violating the rule of never doing wrong.

Now we can approach Socrates’ claim about obedience to the State in more detail. On the one hand, Socrates may be stating that we are obliged to follow justice, and if the State is just, then we are obliged to follow the State; if the State is unjust, then we have no obligations. On the other hand, Socrates may be saying that any State that is a State, that is, any political authority, is by definition just, because it exists in a position of power and is based upon an agreement between citizens and governing bodies regarding the State’s authority and justice. It is clear that this second argument is flawed, because it suggests that authority figures only become authority figures because they have some essential justice about them. The entire history of the human race proves this wrong: we only have to look at all the bad rulers that existed. We have to be careful that we do not blindly follow authority: this contradicts the principle of ethics and justice. Socrates would not agree with this position, because his main commandment is never to do wrong: the State certainly can sometimes do wrong. But Socrates still seems to think that either a state is just or not just. The philosopher Ehrenberg explains this position as follows: Socrates maintains that “no individual has the right to weaken the authority of the law.” (29) In this definition, it would appear that Socrates is advocating the submission to authority figures. And Socrates seems to advocate this submission precisely because he thinks that either the law can be just or unjust. However, this is a simplification as I have argued throughout this paper. Any particular political system can have a multitude of different laws, some being good laws and some being bad laws. This is a case of overlooking the detail of any system, and taking it as a whole. But maybe, in the case of the law and how the State works, the parts are more important than the whole. Good laws can coexist alongside bad laws, therefore blind authority and obedience is incorrect and based on a simplification.

In conclusion, Socrates wants to say that all just agreements should be followed. And in his particular relationship to the State of Athens, he thinks that this is a just agreement, therefore he should not flee from his prison cell. But the mistake of Socrates is to think that a whole system of laws are either good or bad; he does not think that the body of the law may be a combination of good and bad agreements. This is a more complex view of authority and power. Authority and power may some times be benevolent and some times not. Any relationship with any individual or institution has its good and bad sides. To take an “all or nothing” approach, saying that all obedience is necessary, seems to have failed to examine the State in more detail. And if the unexamined life is not worth living, this is a perfect example of an approach to the State that is unexamined.

Works Cited

Ehrenberg, Victor. Man, State and Deity: Essays in Ancient History. London, UK: Taylor & Francis, 1974. Plato. Complete Works. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1997.