Apology by Plato

Philosophy

Rejecting the Law and Accepting the Consequences

In the Apology, Plato describes the court case where Socrates is being charged with corrupting the youth. In doing so, it is seen that Socrates is facing a moral dilemma. He disagrees with the city and considers its laws as immoral and this prompts him to follow his own moral laws. At the same time, Socrates rejects the laws of the city and fails to recognize them at all, with this meaning that he is not able to accept the consequences of his choices. The trial described and its outcome suggests that Socrates' choices are not the right ones. Rather than accept immoral laws, you should disobey moral laws and accept the consequences of doing so.

The first important point to note is that laws are fallible. The laws of the city are not necessarily moral and could be wrong. Socrates himself seemed to be aware of this, where he stated that "human wisdom has little or no value" (Plato, Apology 23a). However, the laws of the city and of society in general are also necessary to maintaining order in the city. As long as everyone is living as part of a city, everyone has an obligation to accept the laws of the city. While the laws of the city may not always be perfect, they are always necessary to society functioning properly. Therefore, there is more to be gained by accepting laws even if they are not perfect, than by rejecting them. This is something that Socrates did not appear to accept, with Socrates refusing to accept the unjust laws of the city.

However, this is not to say that you should completely accept unjust laws. Instead, it is more important that the laws of the city are recognized as existing. This does not occur for Socrates. He is described stating that he would rather "run any risk on the side of law and justice rather than join you, for fear of prison or death, when you were engaged in an unjust course" (Plato, Apology 32b). In saying this, Socrates is choosing not to even recognize the laws of the city and to only act based on his own laws. The problem in this is that Socrates is not only an individual, but also an individual existing as part of a larger system. In this way, Socrates ignores the reality of his situation. His inability to even recognize the laws of the city is what leads to him being found guilty and put to death. This outcome suggests that Socrates did not take the right path. The right path would have been to disobey the moral laws and act based on his own moral laws. However, the right path also would have included recognizing that he is breaking the laws of the city and being willing to accept responsibility for this. If this had of happened, Socrates would have accepted his place as part of the larger system, respected the laws of the court, and participated fully in the court case. This would have prevented the negative outcome that occurred.

The next related point is that laws can change. Laws are not fixed and do not remain the same forever. This means that if someone has a problem with a law, there is an opportunity for that person to take action that can result in the law being changes. This is an opportunity that Socrates had. As noted, he was aware that he was disobeying moral laws. However, he also acted as if the laws did not exist and failed to recognize the reality of them. In doing so, he lost his opportunity to change them. In doing so, he also rejected the fact that he does exist as part of a larger system and ignored the fact that the laws still exist for everyone else, regardless of whether he accepts them. In considering Socrates' opinions on the laws, it seems that if he felt strongly enough to reject them, he should have felt strongly enough to take some action to change them. This is Socrates problem, where he both rejected the laws and tried to avoid the consequences. His major error was not in rejecting the laws, since it is noted that laws are fallible and so there will sometimes be reason to reject them. His error was in his inability to accept the consequences of doing so. He refused to recognize that he was rejecting the law, acting as if they did not exist or apply if he considered them wrong. Based on this, he then refused to argue against the laws or state his case. For Socrates, the consequences of breaking the law included that there was a need to justify his actions. If Socrates had of accepted responsibility for his choices, he would have made valid arguments and justified his choices. This also would have given the society the opportunity to see the error in the laws and change them. It was noted earlier that like everyone, Socrates was both an individual and part of a larger system. Accepting the consequences of disobeying the laws would have allowed him to play his part in the larger system by changing the laws that govern all individuals. However, Socrates chose not to play his part in the system and his choices were based only on his own moral codes. This is not realistic approach since no person is ever just an individual as long as they exist as part of a larger society.