Why Does Socrates Think We Have an Obligation to Obey the Laws of Society - Essay Example

WHY DOES SOCRATES THINK WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO OBEY THE LAWS OF SOCIETY? 
 Student Name Course name Date Why does Socrates think we have an obligation to obey the laws of society? 
Do you agree? Introduction Socrates (469-399 BC) can be described as one of the greatest philosophers, who up to this day, is widely acknowledged for laying the fundamentals of contemporary Western philosophy. As Smith (2007) highlights, he was a mysterious figure identified through the works of later traditional writers, especially the works of his students Xenophon and Plato, and plays of his modern Aristophanes. His most notable philosophy, gathered from the writings of Plato, was the obligation to do what an individual thought was right even when facing widespread opposition, and the requirement to seek knowledge even when under resistance. Many viewpoints traditionally attributed to him have been described as illogical as they are argued to be holding opposing views with common sense. The most significant of Socrate’s viewpoints has been the question of whether, or under what circumstances, we have an obligation to obey the law. This particular paper therefore intends to provide an analysis about why Socrates thought we have an obligation to obey the laws of the society.1 According to Wellman & Simmons (2005), Socrate’s first line of reasoning as regards the requirement to obey the laws of the society is based on the analogical argument. According to this argument, Socrates compares the relationship between a state and its citizen as similar to that of a child and her parents. Socrates argues that just like an individual has the responsibility to obey and not cause violence to his/her parents, every individual has an obligation to obey and not cause violence to the state, since both are responsible for their existence. Socrates believed in this line of reasoning arguing that the society gave each and everyone a family, education and a nurturing, and a share of all the good things it could offer, and therefore, each and every citizen owes obedience to that particular state or society. He argued therefore that the laws of the society were to be more honoured than our mothers or fathers, and that to cause violence or disobey the country ought to be viewed as more dishonour than disrespecting once own exclusive rights. 2 Wellman & Simmons (2005), therefore highlights that Socrates believed that one was not just a product of his parents, but since he/she was raised in a society, he/she was a servant to his/her society as his/her parents and the parents before them were. Therefore, he argued that one has to either persuade his/her country or abide by its orders, enduring silently whatever it commanded one to endure.3 On the other hand, critics of this analogical argument have termed it as a weak analogy arguing that there are a number of ways in which a state, as Socrates argues, is very different from a parent. The critics contend that there is a clear slip in Socrate’s argument about the obligation of one to obey his/her parents and the obligation not to act violently to one’s own parents. In all probability, the critics argue that outgrow and unless Socrates would have proved that the relationship between a citizen and state is like that of a minor child and its parents, the comparison is even more weaker compared to a grown up child and his parents (Hubin, 2011).Therefore, at best, the critics of this argument claim that the obligation to obey and not harm one’s own parents is a prima facie obligation. It can be overtaken by other considerations. Therefore, even if Socrate’s argument from the comparison was supported, it would only prove that there is a prima facie responsibility to obey and not cause harm to the state. Socrate’s therefore has still to prove that other moral reflection do not override this analogy.4 According to Wellman & Simmons (2005), another argument that Socrates made regarding the obligation to obey the laws of the society is based on the gratitude argument. According to this argument, Socrates claimed that breaking the rules is destructive of the rule of law. As a consequence, Socrates believed that we have an obligation to obey the laws of our society because disobeying the state is challenging its legitimacy and undermining its authority, a factor that gives rise to social disorder. According to Wellman & Simmons (2005), therefore, Socrates argument that we have an obligation to obey the laws of our society was that it is wrong to destroy that from which an individual has willingly accepted benefits. For that reason, it is wrong to go against the law.5 On the other hand, according to Hubin (2011), critics against this argument have argued that the responsibility of gratitude is at best a prima facie obligation. The critics contend that if the argument was indeed successful, then Socrates would have proved a very significant conclusion that an individual who willingly accepts state benefits has a prima facie responsibility to abide by the laws of that particular state. However, they argue that Socrates should not have come up with the conclusion that he ought, all things considered, to agree to his punishment. Another significant reason why Socrates believed that we have an obligation to obey the laws of the society can also argued based on the contract argument. According to this argument, Socrates argues once an individual has reached the level of manhood, he/she has become knowledgeable of the laws/customs of the society, and as well had the opportunity to leave that particular society if he did not like the rules. Socrates further argues that there have not been any laws permitting a given citizen from leaving the state and going somewhere else.6 Therefore, Socrates argues that by willingly accepting to stay, an individual has accepted to comply with the laws or customs of that particular society and is therefore in contract or agreement to comply with the law as provided by the legal system. As a result of this, Socrates argues that an individual is obligated to keep his/her agreements or to carry out what one has contracted to do. This justifies his argument that one has an obligation to comply with the law (Velasquez, 2010). Socrates viewpoint concerning the obedience of the law is that the contract is between state’s laws and the citizen. However, Hubins (2011) argues that laws are not actually the correct sort of things to have contractual relationships with. Hubins (2011) argues that possibly states are. According to Hubins (2011) the contract ought to be interpreted as existing between the state and citizen. Hubins (2011) further highlights that a more benevolent understanding would be to hold a more contemporary view that the contract is between the citizens who make up the state. The returning injury or the injustice argument provides another basis supporting why Socrates believed that we have an obligation to obey the laws of the society. As highlighted by Hubin (2011), the returning injury or the injustice argument contends that in no situation should one do a wrong or even return an injustice when he/she is wrong, something that most individuals consider as the natural course. According to Belousek (2011), Socrates in this case implied that no one should return an injustice or cause injury to another, whatever the level of provocation. 7 With his personal life in the balance, Belousek (2011) argues that Socrates remained convinced that revenge was wrong. Socrates further gave a natural law argument that argue that justice serves the natural good for the soul that is harmed by the unjust actions and benefited by the just ones. According to his argument, retribution is therefore harmful to an individual’s own soul, damaging even for the individual returning harm for harm in order to make a wrong right. Socrate’s in this argument therefore verifies categorically that it is not right to carry out an injustice or return an injustice or even defend one’s self against a wrong by way of retaliation. 8 Critics of the returning injury or the injustice argument have argued that it is question-begging. They argue that it is improbable that Socrate’s idea not to return an injustice would cause the state to be more unfair. In fact, the hypothesis behind civil disobedience is that selective disobedience is able to make the state to be more fair or just. To the critics, non-compliance would at least block the state from executing injustice, as a result serving as an example to other individuals. 9 By unreceptively agreeing to the court injustice, one might possibly increase that probability that he would not be the last victim of injustice. Critics have also argued that the principle is inapplicable owing to the fact that Socrates denied that he had been harmed. Therefore, if common sense is applied, it is not possible that Socrate’s idea not to return an injustice would make weaker the rule of the state since legal systems continue carrying out a lot of breach without being noticeably weakened.10 According to Wellman & Simmons (2005), Socrates claim that we have an obligation to obey the laws of the society seems debatable judging from various individuals who have responded to his assertion. In my viewpoint, however, I think it is trivially factual that every individual is lawfully obliged to comply with the laws; as a result, this question ought to concern an ethical obligation to comply with the law. Often, and of course, within any credible moral system, there will be a moral duty to abstain from various things that it forbids. For instance, there will almost certainly be a responsibility to desist from doing actions that would be termed as mugging or murder quite independently of the fact that the state law prohibits them. This question can therefore be argued only in reference to some general theories of moral or ethical obligation. Such theories ought to be valid like any other facts, prior to our positions or other beliefs towards them, but directing our agreement. If the preferred system is what everyone can generally identify with as the dominant morality of our current society, then the answer, in my opinion is that there is always a prima facie responsibility to comply with the law as such, but not absolute. In general, what is clear is that Socrate’s arguments are mired by unclarity regarding the matter and those arguments regarding his assertions are sketchy, making critics to challenge it easily. So, if I have to interpret the assertion, “there is an obligation to obey the law”, as implying that for each and every law of a given legal system, there is a responsibility or obligation to comply with, then the assertion is in all probability too weak to be attention-grabbing given the imposed assumption that social systems are logically fair, free and democratic. One significant focus regarding the matter is therefore whether as individuals we have a moral responsibility or obligation to comply with laws even if we believe they are morally questioning. Conclusion From the above analysis, what is evident is the fact that there is a controversy regarding the issue of whether, or under what circumstances we have an obligation to comply with the law. Socrates arguments as revealed by the above analysis seem to be mired by unclarity over the matter. What is also clear from the analysis is the fact that Socrate’s arguments as regards his assertion are sketchy, making critics to challenge them easily. Based on the analysis, this contentious question can be argued only in reference to some general theories of moral or ethical obligation. However, such theories ought to be valid like any other facts, prior to our positions or other beliefs towards them, but directing our agreement. On the other hand, Socrate’s arguments about the issue are suggestive of the various political obligation theories that have come up in the last two-and-half millennia since he died. References Belousek, D.S, 2011, Atonement, Justice, and Peace: The Message of the Cross and the Mission of the Church, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing D’Amato, A, 2010 Obligation to Obey the Law: A Study of the Death of Socrates, 49 Southern California Law Review Hubin, 2011, Socrates: Apology and Crito, Retrieved on April 25, 2012 from Smith, L, 2007, Who is Socrates? Greek Philosopher, Retrieved on April 25, 2012 from Velasquez, M, 2010, Philosophy: A Text with Readings, Cengage Learning. Wellman, C.H & Simmons, A.L, 2005, Is There A Duty To Obey The Law, Cambridge University Press. Read More