[1.3.] Obedience to the Law.

 

We have seen that Hobbes, as part of the tradition of social contract theory, believes that a citizen’s obligation to obey the law can be explained in terms of a hypothetical agreement—an agreement that rational beings would make with each other to turn over their “rights” to an absolute sovereign, an entity with the power to make and enforce laws. Rational beings would turn over their rights in order to escape the state of nature.

 

So on Hobbes’ view, government derives its legitimacy from a hypothetical contract among its citizens.

 

But this approach does not seem to allow for people to disobey laws which are unjust. Hobbes’ view seems to have been that once you turn over your rights to the sovereign, you are then morally obligated always to obey that sovereign’s laws, no matter what.

 

So it seems that, in answering the question, is disobeying the law ever morally justified?, Hobbes would say: no.

 

To many thinkers, this seems to be an unacceptable consequence, since it is possible for laws to be unjust or otherwise immoral, e.g.,

·         laws requiring racial segregation in the American South from the 1870s to the 1950s (so-called “Jim Crow” laws).

·         laws limiting the right to vote to men.

·         some maintain that drafting individuals into military service, and laws outlawing the use of certain drugs, are unjust.

·         some maintain that laws permitting abortion are immoral.

 

We will now consider another thinker who reaches the same conclusion as Hobbes, and by way of similar reasoning.

 

[1.3.1.] The Crito.

 

Socrates (470 - 399 BCE).

·         Said to be a stonemason by trade.

·         Took part in military campaigns during the Peloponnesian War (Athens’ war with Sparta); noted for his courage.

·         Homely in appearance: pop-eyed, bulbous-nosed, thick-lipped, with a paunch and a  shambling gait.

·         He had a following of young men who congregated with him on the streets of Athens and in their homes.

·         One of them was Plato (c.427 – 347 BCE), author of the Crito.

·         Could drink anybody under the table.

·         At age 70, Socrates was convicted of worshipping gods other than those of Athens, and of corrupting the youth; he was sentenced to death.

·         Socrates was a real historical figure, but he appears as a character in most of the philosophical dialogues written by his student Plato. It is generally believed that in the earliest dialogues written by Plato, including the Crito, the character of Socrates espouses the views of the actual Socrates, but that in the later dialogues the character of Socrates serves as a mouthpiece for Plato’s own views.

The Crito

·         Because of a religious observance, Socrates couldn’t be executed at once; a month passed after his trial.

·         He spent that time in prison, conversing with visitors.

·         The Crito takes place the morning the ceremonial ship is sighted returning from Delos, indicating that Socrates must soon be executed.

·         Socrates’ friend Crito tries to convince him to commit an act of civil disobedience, namely, to escape and thereby avoid execution. (Crito and Socrates’ other friends would be able to bribe the guards to allow Socrates to escape.)

·         Socrates rejects those arguments and says:

 

Our real task ... is to consider one question only, the one which we raised just now: shall we be acting justly in paying money and showing gratitude to these people who are going to rescue me, and in escaping or arranging the escape ourselves, or shall we really be acting unjustly in doing all this? If it becomes clear that such conduct is unjust, I cannot help thinking that the question whether we are sure to die, or to suffer any other ill-effect for that matter, if we stand our ground and take no action, ought not to weigh with us at all in comparison with the risk of acting unjustly. (p.16, emphasis added)

 

In other words, Socrates believes that it would be worse to commit an injustice than to allow himself to be executed.

 

·         He imagines himself in a dialogue with the laws of the city-state of Athens. (p.17)

·         At least two different arguments can be picked out from this dialogue, both of which conclude that it would be wrong for Socrates to escape.

A Brief Review of Basic Logical Concepts   argument (df.): a set of statements, some of which (the argument’s premises) are intended to serve as evidence or reasons for thinking that another statement (the argument’s conclusion) is true.   validity (a.k.a. deductive validity) (df.): A valid argument is one in which the truth of the premises would guarantee the truth of the conclusion; i.e., it is impossible for the premises to be all true and the conclusion to be false at the same time.   soundness (df.): A sound argument is one that is valid and has all true premises.   strength (a.k.a. logical strength (df.): A strong argument is one in which the truth of the premises would make the truth of the conclusion likely or probable; it is logically possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false (so the argument is not deductively valid), yet the premises still provide some measure of logical support to the conclusion.   When we critically evaluate an argument, we will be asking two related, but distinct, questions:   1.      Are all of the premises true? [concerns its FACTUAL or MATERIAL ASPECT] 2.      Do the premises support the conclusion, i.e., is it valid, or at least strong? [concerns the LOGICAL ASPECT of the argument]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1.3.1.1.] The Social Benefits Argument

 

See pp.17-18 of your textbook for Socrates’ first argument. One way of expressing the argument in standard form is as follows:

 

 

The Social Benefits Argument.

1.       By escaping and thereby disobeying the law, Socrates would be contributing to the destruction of the government of Athens.

2.       Socrates has benefited from living in Athenian society, under Athenian laws.

     The laws made it possible for his parents to marry and therefore made possible his existence.

     The laws were responsible for his “upbringing and education.”

3.       Therefore, he owes to Athens a debt of gratitude. (2)

     Socrates compares the relation between citizen and state to that between parent and child, and says that the state should be even more “precious” to an individual than his or her parents. [See p.18, passage beginning “...compared with your mother and father and all the rest of your ancestors...”]

4.       Therefore, he ought not to do anything that will contribute to the destruction of the state. (3)

5.       Therefore, he ought not to break the law by escaping. (1, 4)

 

Remember that an unsound argument can have a true conclusion. In other words, it is possible to give a bad argument in support of a true claim.

 

So even if the Social Benefits argument is unsound (either because it has one or more false premises, or because its premises do not support its conclusion), its conclusion might still be true. We will return to this point next time, after we examine Socrates’ second argument.

 

 

Stopping point for Wednesday January 17. For next time, read the remainder of the Crito. This is not in your textbook, but it is online. Go to

 

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/crito.html

 

and begin reading at the paragraph which starts:

 

Soc. Then the laws will say: "Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt...

 

Print a copy of this portion of the Crito and bring it to class. At the beginning of our next class, be prepared to discuss the various arguments against breaking the law that Socrates gives in this portion of Crito.