Ana içeriğe atla

Socrates' Social Contract in Crito

 

Crito, a friend of Socrates, resents the fact that Socrates is wrongly sentenced to death. He believes that the just action to take would be helping Socrates escape the confinement because of two prominent reasons: By not helping Socrates, Crito is doing injustice and because of that he can face disapproval from other people. Second, by accepting his fatal punishment Socrates is depriving his family and friends of his company and education. To answer this, Socrates puts forward the notion that there is a covenant between the citizen and the state. That covenant should be honored because the state begets the citizen.

Socrates suggests that retaliation is never just and it is the premise on which he builds his argument pertinent to Socratic citizenship. He says that by going against the laws and evading the punishments you nullify the power of the court and render it insignificant (50b). This is according to Socrates, nothing different than destroying the state. So, should an individual inflict harm on someone who harmed him? Socrates has a very clear answer to this question and proposes that wrongdoing regardless of the setting is always unjust and therefore “One should never do wrong in return, nor do any man harm, no matter what he may have done to you” (49d) So far it is established that retaliation is always unjust and as a result, whether Socrates’ condemnation is just or not does not justify his escape. Therefore, it can be argued that in the eyes of Socrates, a citizen should never riot against the laws. Instead, he should either persuade the court or leave the state (51b).

Socrates is condemned to death because more people voted against him than in favor of him. I think this is a form of tyranny, tyranny of the masses. One argument Socrates puts forward in Apology is that he did not make weaker arguments into stronger and encouraged impiety. Rather Socrates admits that he is also ignorant but what he knows and others don’t is that he is cognizant of his ignorance. He questioned people who claimed to be knowledgeable and other people followed his Socratic interrogation method. This was viewed as corruption by those who are fueled with hatred and anger towards Socrates. Therefore, as far as it is known Socrates is right and should not be condemned to death. The reason why he will be wrongly killed is that the majority wants to do so. Although Socrates is given a sort of rostrum where he expressed his opinions and tried to convince the jury, his sentence of death was inevitable because unjust and non-philosopher people outnumber the just and philosopher people. In Republic, Socrates proposes a ship analogy where he suggests that ordinary people are incompetent at assessing who should be in charge. Instead of choosing a competent leader who is wise and knowledgeable, people are inclined to select the charismatic who excel at rhetoric. This goes to prove that voting is not an effective method of choosing the right decision. Voting can lead to tyranny where the masses oppress the minorities. In this case, the masses are non-philosophers and minorities are true philosophers like Socrates. So, it was impossible for Socrates to persuade the public because the public is inclined to be convinced by rhetoric than the truth. I think this is the way it can be claimed that Socrates was facing tyranny and that is why he should escape prison. He had no chance to persuade the court. If there is no means to persuade the court or the public, I think it is justifiable to revolt against the state because abstinent to do so will do more harm.

On the other hand, Socrates took the right decision as his escape would have done more harm. This is because his death granted him a reputation and he became one of the most well-known philosophers. If he had escaped, people would have not talked about him as much as they had done. This I think summarizes what I am trying to suggest, justice is doing the best deed possible.

Yorumlar

Yorum Gönder

Bu blogdaki popüler yayınlar

Rhetoric in Hobbes' Leviathan

  Hobbes’ Word Play Hobbes argues in favor of a monarch or an oligarch. To be more precise, he is in favor of the idea that multiplicity comes with complexity, harming the integrity of the state. In his opinion, men are mostly power-driven, greedy beings who must surrender themselves to a sovereign power that can spread the terror of punishment. According to Hobbes, this fear of punishment is the only effective motivating force that can keep people from brutally murdering each other. While this Hobbesian idea of the state portrays the sovereign’s subjects almost as though they are slaves, this essay will argue that Hobbes is not fundamentally against liberty and allows it within the constraints of laws. Hobbes's description of liberty suggests that only external impediments are against freedom. He states that liberty is “the absence of external impediments” (189) and, although these impediments may take away man’s power to do what he would, they do not prevent men from using th...
1 yorum
Devamı

Rousseau on Legitimacy of State

Hobbes'dan sonra Rousseau okumayı Proust'tan sonra Daphnes ve Chloe okumaya benzetiyorum. Proust aşkı öyle yapay, çıkarcı ve öyle çirkin yansıtıyor ki, ondan sonra okuduğun her romana ister istemez Proust'un realist bakış açısından bakıyorsun. Belki de realizm sevdamı bırakmalıyımdır. Hobbes'un determinist bakış açısı da birçok argümanını epey ikna edici kılıyor. Bazen bu bakış açısından kaçmak istiyor insan. Hobbes kimmiş lan, ben ölümlü tanrıya irademi falan teslim edemem, gayet özgürüm demek istiyor. Yine de gel gör ki Hobbes haklı. Nasıl, Kant ödev ahlakında nasıl ki herkes davranışlarının topluma yansıdığını varsayarak hareket etmeli diyorsa, Hobbes da yapılmak istemediğini yapma diyor. Buna karşı çıkmak da biraz zor. Rousseau abi Social Contract'ında denese de Emile kitabındaki ikna ediciliğini devam ettiremiyor gibi hissediyorum. Birazdan okuyacak olduğun yazıda da oldukça soyut fikirler göreceksin ve yer yer kendine e ama niye diye soracaksın. Bil ki ben de ...
Yorum Gönder
Devamı

Hobbes’ Paradox

Hobbes’ Paradox Resolved According to Hobbes, people are born with passions that ultimately lead them into a never-ending war. They require artificial power to stop killing each other. Unless such a power is erected, Hobbes suggests, leaving the state of nature is impossible since people are not inclined to cooperate and trust each other. The core reason why it is impossible to leave the state of nature is because of the innate passions people have that drive them to be constantly in conflict. Hobbes states that in the condition of nature, “any reasonable suspicion” renders any covenant or promise invalid since “bonds of words are too weak to bridle men’s ambition, avarice, anger, and other passions…” (196). Here, Hobbes highlights the importance of punishments, suggesting that without the motivating fear of punishments, covenants are practically invalid. It is also important to understand what Hobbes means by the condition of nature. He argues that because men are born equal, they...
Yorum Gönder
Devamı