Socrates: Misunderstood Civil Disobedience

756 Words2 Pages

PHIL 160 Essay
Yuting Fu
Professor: Daniel Sanderman
Socrates and Civil Disobedience Many people, especially scholars, might believe that Socrates had committed a civil disobedience. But it seems to be the exact opposite to me. Before I explain my reasoning behind my claim, let’s first understand what civil disobedience truly is, and what exactly did Socrates do to cause the trouble. Civil disobedience is being disobedient to certain laws in a peaceful, but active manner. So the person who commits civil disobedience must actively rejects to follow certain laws of government and peacefully accept the consequences. For example, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is a typical example of modern civil disobedience. He actively rejected to follow …show more content…

The first one is the charge of impiety. The second one is the charge of atheism. In the ancient Greek, people did not really care about what exactly you put your faith on, but they did care a whole lot about whether you have put your faith on something and acted piously accordingly. And according to Socrates, both of the charges were not true, because, as claimed by himself, he was on the mission that the god of wisdom gave him. Other than what he has been charged for, Socrates also mentioned and admitted that he had defied the orders before. The first time was for the trial of the generals. Socrates believed that have the generals on trial as a group was a violation of law, and therefore he voted against it. The second time was during the ruling of the thirty tyrants. This time, Socrates rejected the government as a whole and denied the power that the government had. It will seem like Socrates might be civil disobedient due to what he had been charged for, his arguments on court, and what he had done in the …show more content…

For what Socrates did on the court, I do not think they should be accounted toward civil disobedience. Because all he did is to defend himself in a lawful manner. He was actually defending against the ideas that he was being unlawful (impiety and atheism). Because, as we all know, Athens’s law required its citizens to be pious of what they believe. Socrates claimed that he was on the mission given by the God at Delphi, and it would be ridiculous to say that he should be charged of atheism or impiety. And I think his defense was successful and persuasive. And therefore he was not being civil disobedient on the court. What about his past? For the two cases in the past, Socrates was either rejected the government as a whole, or the majority excluding him was being unlawful. I will start with the thirty tyrants. Socrates was rejecting the orders that were given by the government of thirty tyrants in a peaceful manner. But instead of rejecting part of the laws and obeying others, Socrates rejected the government as a whole. Therefore Socrates was not being civil disobedient by definition. In the case of the ten trial generals, it is clearly documented that Athens’ law requires having generals in cases like this put into trials separately. Yet the majorities voted for having ten generals put into trial as a group. Socrates voted against it and defied against the orders by the majorities. Socrates was trying to protect and follow the

Open Document