Plato, King, and Thoreau on Civil Disobedience and Government

Introduction: Three Philosophies of Government and Conscience

Plato, Martin Luther King Jr., and Henry David Thoreau each held widely differing ideals relating to government, its necessity, and the responsibility of citizens toward it. These views were all closely related to each philosopher's personal ideals regarding how best to live with the greatest integrity. This also applies to life and politics today. Each individual is free to decide whether to take civil action against their government. As Martin Luther King Jr. asserts, it is ultimately a matter of conscience. Each philosophy discussed here will be examined for its applicability to the issue of the Iraq War and the responsibility of citizens to take action.

Socrates and the Duty of Submission

Plato's Crito focuses on the philosopher Socrates, who has been condemned to death for "corrupting the youth" of Athens. Crito attempts to encourage his escape, but Socrates refuses on the grounds of his own personal ethics. For Socrates, ethics and values are closely related to one's reverence for the government. This stems from a specific paradigm of the time: citizens are not on equal terms with the government. The government knows best and should not be questioned. Socrates uses the parent–child analogy to explain this view — the government is a parent body to the citizens of Athens, and the only acceptable form of protest is leaving Athens altogether.

Socrates might be admired for his strong adherence to his individual ethics. He does not look beyond the philosophies he has preached throughout his life. For him, the shame of publicly denouncing his beliefs is worse than death. Thus, even though he is in personal danger at the hands of a government that may be wrong, Socrates does not feel he is in a position to protest. The fundamental reason is the inferiority paradigm of citizens relative to the government. The focus is on an individual's sense of ethics and truth rather than on the government's effect on the public. Socrates believes without question that the government, as a superior force, knows what it is doing and that its decisions should be accepted accordingly. He also focuses on his followers, to whom he has preached a certain set of values — values he regards as unchanging and inflexible, as are the rules of government.

While it is admirable that Socrates held to his individual values in order to set a good example for his followers, this individualistic point of view is not easily applicable to politics today. Contemporary politics emphasize equality and the recognition that governments, like other human institutions, make mistakes. The law is no longer seen as unchangeable; democracy ensures all citizens a voice and a vote. Socrates takes a passive point of view, whereas today's focus is on active protest whenever the government is perceived to be in error. Furthermore, Socrates concentrates on his own individual sense of justice and honor, while modern political discourse focuses on the well-being of the nation as a whole. When oppression occurs, many citizens feel it is their responsibility to protest.

This is the situation with the Iraq War. Many citizens believe this war was instigated with a hidden agenda behind the "war on terrorism" ideal, and there have therefore been many protests against the government's actions. This protest stems from concern for innocent lives lost at the hands of political decisions. Many cannot in good conscience allow this to continue without speaking out against it. In terms of Socrates' framework, his conscience inspired him to non-action; today's citizens are inspired to action by theirs.

Martin Luther King Jr. and Principled Nonviolent Protest

This is also true of Martin Luther King Jr., whose view of government is shaped by the suffering he witnessed at its hands. He inspired many toward protest, but in a nonviolent manner. In contrast to Socrates, King believes the government does not always know best and that the laws of the country are not always in the best interest of its citizens. Socrates' point was that citizens of Athens had another option — if they disagreed with its laws, they were free to move to a city with better ones. That option was not open to the African Americans of King's time. As the descendants of people brought forcibly to America, they had no equivalent means of escape. The only other option available to them was protest.

Nonetheless, like Socrates, King continued to show the utmost respect for the government and its officials. This stemmed from lessons drawn from history: violent action breeds more violence rather than change. Peaceful protest, combined with a demonstration of respect for the opponent, is far more effective in King's view.

The situation in Iraq reveals that the American government showed little respect either for fellow statesmen or for citizens of foreign countries — another reason why American citizens have a responsibility to protest. While the government has shown disrespect for others, however, civil action need not mirror that disrespect. Instead, legal channels — such as voting, reporting, or petitions — can be used to register civil disagreement. Following legal channels demonstrates respect for the institution of government and, according to King's view, tends to produce less resistance from the governing body.

According to King, it is not wrong to disagree with the government. This contrasts sharply with Socrates, who asserts that the government in all cases knows best and should be viewed as a parent figure. The situation in King's United States was different: a certain sector of society was treated unjustly, and that injustice was worthy of protest. King's view — that the public should take responsibility for what it perceives as immoral or incorrect actions by the government — offers a more compelling framework for modern democratic life.

Conclusion: Democracy, Duty, and Citizen Action

Socrates' view, while admirable, is rooted in the paradigm of his own time and place. In the United States, democracy is the foundational paradigm and the most basic value of citizenship. The Iraq War, along with measures such as the Patriot Act and other encroachments on civil liberties, undermined that democratic ideal for too long. Citizens have both the right and the duty to protest when government oversteps its bounds, and the philosophical traditions of King and Thoreau provide enduring guidance for doing so in a principled and effective manner.