Anda di halaman 1dari 10

1

Zara Hirani
260726410
TA Brandon
PHIL 200-001

Law and Morality:


A Clashing Union between the narratives of Socrates and Dr. King

Defining the relationship between law and morality is one that remains rather ambiguous

and difficult; we define morals as knowing the difference between right and wrong, good and evil,

and law as the legitimization of these beliefs. Laws are established as a means of good governance,

punishing those who behave immorally, to ensure that society functions in a harmonious way.

Hence, we learn to obey rules, often out of the fear of punishment but also for the betterment of

ourselves and those around us. So, while morals serve as the basis of laws we obey, claiming that

each is granted justice, how can there ever be “unjust” laws? This in itself is a juxtaposing notion

because the sole purpose of laws is to ensure justice. This debate is illustrated through the

contrasting narratives of Socrates and Dr. King. Socrates and Dr. King strongly stood by their own

morals; Socrates believed in being an obedient civilian and thus, accepted the punishment

announced by the Athenian court. Dr. King on the other hand, fought tirelessly against the unjust,

prejudice laws of White Christians and impelled change. Hence, this essay aims to compare the

ways in which both Socrates and Dr. King exemplified morality and how it was ultimately the

incompetence of the judicial system that failed to serve justice.

Socrates was infamous for preaching his ideas about God and the meaning of life and as a

result, his beliefs on religion and spirituality were severely rejected by the masses. Socrates died

from hemlock poisoning, because he was forced to drink this poison as a consequence of being
2

convicted guilty of impiety and corrupting the youth. He was punished as he failed to conform to

and respect the beliefs of his society. Contemporary belief however, would suggest that he was

wrongfully punished and such a law would be unjust. However, the essence of moral grounding

remains the same as Socrates believed that he was deserving of the punishment as it was decided

by the elders of his community. When Crito tries to explain to him how he has been wrongfully

punished and that he should escape, he explains to him “one should never do wrong in return, nor

do any man harm, no matter what he may have done to you.”1 His morals suggest that as dutiful

citizen of his community, it was right for him to accept the punishment and not to disobey the more

learned members of his society.

In sharp contrast, Dr. King, fought the law and the judicial system for being unjust. This is

because Dr. King’s morals were rooted in the belief that just laws are those which are in accordance

to God’s moral code, derived from the Christian religion. Unjust laws on the other hand deviated

from the moral code of God, degrading the human persona by creating differences.2 Belonging

from a minority, a community that was harshly oppressed by White Christians, Dr. King had no

choice but to attempt to persuade and fight for what he believed was justice. He states how the

Negro community faced marginalization, a lack of respect and the segregation amongst masses led

them to suffering from several socio-economic inequalities. Dr. King, in his “Letter from

Birmingham City” states, “…freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, it must be

demanded by the oppressed.”3 This strongly suggests that Dr. King’s beliefs convinced him that

1
Plato, Crito, trans. G.M.A. Grobe (Hackett, 1997), 49d
2
King, p.293
3
King, p.292
3

the only way to attain equality in his society was to fight for it. Through his efforts, he believed

that he could change the ways his in which people were marginalized.

However, the interesting difference between Socrates and Dr. King here was that Dr. King,

belonging to a minority, was an outsider to society’s law and norms; his culture and perceptions

were differing from the masses and the treatment him and his people got were thus derogatory. He

describes how one would struggle to explain to your little daughter as to “…why she can’t go to

the public amusement park and why Funtown is closed to colored children and why white people

treat colored people so differently.”4 In this case, the law had created divides and segregation based

on differences which were beyond people’s control, such as the color of their skin. Hence, it was

justified to retaliate and disobey the unjust laws. On the contrary, Socrates was an inclusive part

of the Athenian society and hence, it was difficult for him to fight against his own people. It was

the very people that had shaped his thoughts and perceptions. Socrates compared the relationship

of a citizen and a state to that of a child and a parent. Hence, his morals obliged him to obey what

he was told. When Crito tries to persuade Socrates that staying in jail and accepting the punishment

that would cost his life is foolish, Socrates explained that it was his very state that gave birth to

him, that nurtured him and educated him. 5 He states “…is your wisdom such as not to realize that

your country is to be honored more than your mother, your father and all your ancestors.”6 Hence,

going against the state in this case according to Socrates was immoral. His morality would be

victorious when, laws, just or unjust, were obeyed. The common ground here is that both Dr. King

and Socrates feel a moral obligation towards their rights. Dr. King feels he has a moral duty to

4
King, p.292-293.
5
Plato, Crito, trans. G.M.A. Grobe (Hackett, 1997), 50e
6
Plato, Crito, trans. G.M.A. Grobe (Hackett, 1997), 51b
4

gain his rights which he has been denied, whereas Socrates believes that he must respect the rights

he has been given.

However, I question that if Socrates felt such a strong moral obligation towards his society

and his people, then why did he choose to accept the punishment? At the end of the day it came

down to a choice he had to make, which was to drink the poison or to escape and attempt to prove

himself innocent. However, he used his morals to justify his choice of accepting death. Isn’t it also

immoral to be a witness and bystander to the wrongdoing? History has been proof that the system

of law is not always perfect, because it man-made such as the case of Dr. King’s case. If it is only

God’s system of judgement that is perfect, then how can we entrust the judicial system to be just.

In modern society, through our surrounding experiences, we have understood that often evidences

are falsified and tampered with, that often what you see with your eyes or hear with your ears may

not actually be true. It also isn’t God’s word that man’s means of governance is correct. So, it is

compelling to contemplate what would have occurred had Socrates escaped his punishment.

The root cause of both Socrates and Dr. King’s issue stems from the conflict between moral

and civil law. What does one do when there is such a conflict? Do we abide by our morals of

obeying the law, like dutiful citizens, or do we try and persuade that these laws need to be changed?

Governance, we assume is synonymous with morals because the human code of conduct is derived

from various religious scriptures and is adapted to ensure order in human societies. However, such

isn’t always the case. This is because with establishing laws comes governing power and power

here becomes the vice that is abused. It is important to understand that while humans have a sense

of morality and a conscience that governs it; humans are also imperfect and often fall into the traps
5

of greed and egoism, which come with power. Therefore, the law is the government’s influential

instrument of power. It allows those in power to set rules that they believe are representative of

the cultural, ethical and moral values of the masses. Hence, the law may not entirely be perfect in

enforcing the ethical and moral values, because it may be biased towards a majority. So, how can

the judicial system ensure leaders with evil intentions do not abuse their power? Essentially, we

have to question the integrity of the state, because at the end of the day it is imperfect humans

running the system.

Dr. King in his “Letter from Birmingham City” questions the Christian state and their laws.

He accuses their laws of being immoral, as they allow sinful and tragic segregation to exist in

society. He questions that if they are always just, then why is it that colored members of society

are treated differently and discriminated and given unequal rights and opportunities compared to

the majority of white people? He states “…who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set

up the segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout the state of Alabama all types of

conniving methods are used to prevent Negros from becoming registered voters.”7 This highlights

that the judicial system is flawed and that the state has the power to establish laws according what

they think is of priority interest, which are biased and not actually moral. King also agrees that

disobeying laws is wrong, but to impose unjust laws in the name of morality is unfair. It is

interesting because King actually makes reference to Socrates in his letter as an example where

the state punished him unjustly. While questioning the accusation made by the state towards his

people of their actions triggering violence, he suggests that it is illogical to say the colour of their

skin is the cause of the violence, while the perpetrator remains innocent. He says that it is just like

7
King, p.294.
6

“condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical delvings

precipitated the misguided popular mind to make him drink the hemlock?”8 He further goes on to

compare this to Jesus’s crucifixion. Such examples once again affirm that the judicial system is

indeed flawed in various ways and that the clash of morality and civil law results in severe

inequalities.

In the case of Socrates, it can be argued that the state was corrupt and had their own agenda

that they wished to drive forward. For instance, Socrates was influencing people’s opinions in

many ways, especially about socially binding norms such as religion. This could have possibly

been a threat to the power and control of the state. If Socrates had been successful in influencing

people about his perceptions on God and spirituality, people would have stopped believing in the

state Gods and a result the state and its individuals would lose their power. Hence, as a result they

accused Socrates of immorally corrupting the youth and spreading non-conforming beliefs. Putting

him in jail was an easy means of stopping his preaching to the people and additionally proving

him guilty and eventually killing him, putting an end to his dangerous thoughts altogether.

However, if the judicial system and its laws were fair, then why did Socrates not get a fair chance

to prove his innocence to the people. Why was it that state authorities and the mass public got to

convict him without giving him a chance to explain as to why he was wrong?

Hence, what is one's obligation to obey the law of the state and where does one draw the

line between simply obeying the law and fighting to stop the injustice inflicted by the law? Socrates

put his morals first and hence, he refused to retaliate. He believed that retaliation is like responding

8
King, p.295.
7

wrong with wrong and therefore would never be justified. This is also because he viewed the law

and Athenian state as high and any form of disrespect would towards them would be immoral. Dr.

King states “I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and

willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its

injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law.”9 This resonates powerfully with

Socrates situation and perhaps to an extent justifies as to why he chose to accept his punishment.

Socrates was breaking the law by making individuals question the concept of religion that the state

was teaching them, he was trying to make people understand about a higher purpose, which posed

as a threat to the state. Instead of fighting the people, by choosing to accept staying in jail, he made

people question whether he really was guilty, thereby also exemplifying his morals. Socrates

explained to Crito “...you will also strengthen the conviction of the jury that they passed the right

sentence on you, for anyone who destroys the laws could easily be thought to corrupt the young”10

suggesting that speaking “…in opposition to them, you will speak in vain.”11 Hence, that is why

today many perhaps agree that Socrates was indeed convicted wrongfully. On the contrary, it

wasn’t immoral of Dr. King to fight for the rights of his community. He was able to change the

social structure of an entire nation. The means through which he attained freedom was nonviolent

efforts and struggles and that is why he is recognized by history as being one of the most prominent

and influential people of our time.

In conclusion, Dr. King suggests that we create unjust laws to defend ourselves, judging

the other, to falsely inflict a sense of inferiority so only to make ourselves feel superior. I strongly

9
King, p.294.
10
Plato, Crito, trans. G.M.A. Grobe (Hackett, 1997), 53c
11
Plato, Crito, trans. G.M.A. Grobe (Hackett, 1997), 54d
8

agree that just laws are created to protect the innocent and punish the wrongdoers, but laws become

unjust when they marginalise and separate people over a difference, they have no control of. As

humans, we have an innate ability to be moral. Once taught good and evil, our conscience is always

clear in differing right from wrong. However, it is the choice that we make with our own freewill

that ultimately determines the consequences of our actions. Hence, humans can be moral but the

choice they make, perhaps influenced by the greed for power, can in the case of judicial systems

can make “justice” flawed and largely immoral. Hence, it justified to disobey the unjust because

in the eyes of God, all humans regardless of their differences are equal. Neither Socrates, nor King

were immoral and nor were their actions immoral; however, the oppression they faced was due to

the injustice of the law and that is simply because anything man-made is imperfect.

References

Grube, G.M.A., trans. " Crito" in Plato: Complete Works, Ed. John M. Cooper. Third ed.: Hackett,

1997

King, Martin Luther, Jr. "Letter from Birmingham City Jail." Letter to Clergymen. 1963. MS.

Birmingham City Jail, Birmingham, Alabama.


9

Appendix

A conscious effort has been made to implement the feedback received


largely around making the essay more comparative conceptually and objective
rather than subjective and opinionated.
1. More specific title – mentions Socrates and Dr. King
2. Thesis is clearer in stating that the essay is a comparative analysis of
Socrates and Dr. King’s ideas of morals.
3. Statements regarding personal evaluation of morality/time periods of
Socrates and Dr. King’s actions have been removed.
4. More descriptive explanations about ideas of morality have been added to
quotations
a. “…freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, it must be
demanded by the oppressed” for example is explained more
objectively rather than stating giving a moral judgement about it
5. Socrates has also been quoted more frequently to strengthen the
presentation of ideas of his morality.
a. 49 d
b. 51 b
c. 53 c
d. 54 d
10

Anda mungkin juga menyukai