My Answer to the Laws of Athens (Plato's Crito)
In thinking about this I would have to first come to grips with the arguments that the laws presented.
1. I happen to have been born in New York City at a time when it was very nearly the largest and most important and powerful city in the world.
2. I did in fact enjoy the medical and educational facilities demanded by, and paid for by, the State and City of New York. I went to public schools all the way through college.
3. I knew that I had the freedom to travel out of New York and resettle anywhere with my 'property' (whatever that was!) and from age 19 to age 32 I was not a legal resident of New York.
4. I don't believe that the city failed me in any way, right up to the point that I was of full age. The subway, after all, was a quarter all day Sunday.
5. There were times when I didn't exactly follow the Law (nothing major) - but it never really occurred to me to go into politics in order to 'persuade the city and the men of the city' to change the laws I did not like to obey.
I would now have to admit to the laws of New York, if they were to assume physical form and stand before me, that they were as a parent to me, and that I should be prepared to do anything to defend them, since I owed them my life.
Once I had a speeding ticket and I thought it was a classic set-up. The police car hid around a corner of the bend of the Prospect Expressway. I was definitely going above the limit, but others were too, and it wasn't really a clearly dangerous arrangement of traffic. So I decided to keep my peace and just argue the ticket in traffic court. I had prepared a 'defense' of "necessity" -- I broke the law to avoid injury to myself and other drivers, and there was no other choice open to me. I wrote a little "brief" for the traffic judge, and I cited some case law. When my hearing came the Judge heard the policeman; I had no evidence that his equipment was faulty. In fact I admitted I was speeding. The judge looked at my 'brief' for a total of ten seconds and threw out my case. I had to pay the fine and the penalty.
I felt that I had had my opportunity to speak. I was completely free to appeal the judge's decision, but I thought I would never have the time or energy to take it further. It didn't wound me deeply to pay the fine, though it hurt in the wallet.
Thus far I think the Laws would be smiling upon me. But what about a capital offence? I think I would have to take the 'ordinary man's way out' because I cannot be as consistent in my own beliefs as Socrates. I would fall back on a love of life and family, and a fear of death -- all matters which Socrates seems to have conquered.
Perhaps I would complain to the Laws that they had failed me in one sense -- that they did not make me as strong or as good a person as the Laws of Athens made Socrates. If they had succeeded in my case, maybe I would have made the same decision that Socrates did. But then I have to ask, is the shortcoming attributable to the Laws, or to me?
The tragic irony of Socrates' situation seems to me to be this: while in his intellectual perception the Laws appear to be perfect beings, and the contract between the Laws and the individual citizen appear to be free of blame, when you look at Athens itself during the Peloponnesian War you do not find a perfect city. It may in some sense have perfect laws, but it has citizens which are not only far from perfect: they might even be characterized as insane. This was brought out by Thucydides' speakers: Cleon. who told the Athenians that they were so obsessed with public spectacle and with confidence in their own intellects that they were incompetent at framing policy; by Nicias, who tried to convince the Athenians of the madness of the Sicilian Expedition. It was also suggested by Thucydides in the description of civic erosion under external pressures, such as the plague at Athens, and internal pressures, such as class warfare, paranoia (the paranoia around the mutilation of the Herms). The Athenian response to Melos' request for neutrality shows a city completely disengaged from the concepts of power and justice, and focused entirely on temporary survival, unchecked expansion, and the exercise of its own will.
If the city itself is a tyrant in its relations to externals (towards friends, enemies, and neutrals), where in the city would you be able to find citizens who can tend to the Laws with justice? The Laws cannot be expected to execute themselves. For Plato's Socrates, the only value of the Law is that it is self-executing for each individual who properly understands civic life. Socrates doesn't need a jailer, and maybe doesn't even need an executioner (read the final passage of the Phaedo). For Socrates, the knowledge that he has been convinced and sentenced to death by the Laws is enough for him to wish to act in conformity with them, regardless of whether the other citizens - even all the other citizens of Athens - are disconnected from, and unworthy of, the Laws of the city.
1. I happen to have been born in New York City at a time when it was very nearly the largest and most important and powerful city in the world.
2. I did in fact enjoy the medical and educational facilities demanded by, and paid for by, the State and City of New York. I went to public schools all the way through college.
3. I knew that I had the freedom to travel out of New York and resettle anywhere with my 'property' (whatever that was!) and from age 19 to age 32 I was not a legal resident of New York.
4. I don't believe that the city failed me in any way, right up to the point that I was of full age. The subway, after all, was a quarter all day Sunday.
5. There were times when I didn't exactly follow the Law (nothing major) - but it never really occurred to me to go into politics in order to 'persuade the city and the men of the city' to change the laws I did not like to obey.
I would now have to admit to the laws of New York, if they were to assume physical form and stand before me, that they were as a parent to me, and that I should be prepared to do anything to defend them, since I owed them my life.
Once I had a speeding ticket and I thought it was a classic set-up. The police car hid around a corner of the bend of the Prospect Expressway. I was definitely going above the limit, but others were too, and it wasn't really a clearly dangerous arrangement of traffic. So I decided to keep my peace and just argue the ticket in traffic court. I had prepared a 'defense' of "necessity" -- I broke the law to avoid injury to myself and other drivers, and there was no other choice open to me. I wrote a little "brief" for the traffic judge, and I cited some case law. When my hearing came the Judge heard the policeman; I had no evidence that his equipment was faulty. In fact I admitted I was speeding. The judge looked at my 'brief' for a total of ten seconds and threw out my case. I had to pay the fine and the penalty.
I felt that I had had my opportunity to speak. I was completely free to appeal the judge's decision, but I thought I would never have the time or energy to take it further. It didn't wound me deeply to pay the fine, though it hurt in the wallet.
Thus far I think the Laws would be smiling upon me. But what about a capital offence? I think I would have to take the 'ordinary man's way out' because I cannot be as consistent in my own beliefs as Socrates. I would fall back on a love of life and family, and a fear of death -- all matters which Socrates seems to have conquered.
Perhaps I would complain to the Laws that they had failed me in one sense -- that they did not make me as strong or as good a person as the Laws of Athens made Socrates. If they had succeeded in my case, maybe I would have made the same decision that Socrates did. But then I have to ask, is the shortcoming attributable to the Laws, or to me?
The tragic irony of Socrates' situation seems to me to be this: while in his intellectual perception the Laws appear to be perfect beings, and the contract between the Laws and the individual citizen appear to be free of blame, when you look at Athens itself during the Peloponnesian War you do not find a perfect city. It may in some sense have perfect laws, but it has citizens which are not only far from perfect: they might even be characterized as insane. This was brought out by Thucydides' speakers: Cleon. who told the Athenians that they were so obsessed with public spectacle and with confidence in their own intellects that they were incompetent at framing policy; by Nicias, who tried to convince the Athenians of the madness of the Sicilian Expedition. It was also suggested by Thucydides in the description of civic erosion under external pressures, such as the plague at Athens, and internal pressures, such as class warfare, paranoia (the paranoia around the mutilation of the Herms). The Athenian response to Melos' request for neutrality shows a city completely disengaged from the concepts of power and justice, and focused entirely on temporary survival, unchecked expansion, and the exercise of its own will.
If the city itself is a tyrant in its relations to externals (towards friends, enemies, and neutrals), where in the city would you be able to find citizens who can tend to the Laws with justice? The Laws cannot be expected to execute themselves. For Plato's Socrates, the only value of the Law is that it is self-executing for each individual who properly understands civic life. Socrates doesn't need a jailer, and maybe doesn't even need an executioner (read the final passage of the Phaedo). For Socrates, the knowledge that he has been convinced and sentenced to death by the Laws is enough for him to wish to act in conformity with them, regardless of whether the other citizens - even all the other citizens of Athens - are disconnected from, and unworthy of, the Laws of the city.
Comments
Post a Comment