[Return to Writing]
The prompt for this journal was: “If the demands of the state and the demands of your conscience come into conflict, which should you obey? How would Socrates answer this? How would King?”
Word count: 694
Summary
The two readings for today share several things in common: in both, we find the protagonist (Socrates, King) sitting in jail, both men were put in jail unjustly, and both are taking the opportunity afforded by the time in jail to defend their actions by appealing to basic and deeply held moral convictions.
In Plato’s dialogue Crito, we find Socrates’ friend, Crito, attempting to convince Socrates to save his own life by escaping from jail. Crito offers several reasons for doing this, and Socrates responds to each of these reasons. He then continues with two additional arguments for why he should remain in jail, and both of these arguments rest on a fundamental principle of his, namely, that one must never knowingly harm another.
Martin Luther King, Jr., is defending himself to an audience of Christian ministers who had publicly criticized King’s actions. In this wide-ranging letter, King argues that injustices are set right only through the positive actions individual human beings — the injustice doesn't just disappear over time; that non-violent disobedience is often required to bring injustice to the attention of others, that it might become the topic of negotiations; and that religious communities should especially be concerned with righting injustice. At the heart of this discussion lies his distinction between just and unjust laws, and his conviction that showing respect for the idea of the law requires that we directly oppose unjust laws.
Discussion
If ever the demands of the State and the demands of my conscience came into conflict, I would have to obey the demands of my conscience. This is also the position taken by Socrates and Martin Luther King, Jr. I also feel, and both King and Socrates agreed on this point, that my obedience to my conscience must never be allowed to cause harm to another person.
Socrates makes it clear that by living in a State, that person agrees with the State’s laws. If one does not agree with the State, then it the person’s duty to attempt to persuade the State to change. Socrates also makes it clear that if one is convicted of disobeying the laws of the State, then one must comply with the punishment decided upon. To accept the rule of law when it favors you, but then reject it when it disfavors you, is to show no respect for the law, and in a real way brings harm to the laws themselves. As such, it harms the community that benefits from these laws. Socrates is convinced that it is wrong to harm another, and that it is worse to harm another than to be harmed. He notes that people disagree on this point, and that there is little room for discussion here: either one accepts it, or one doesn’t. As such, this principle is like a fundamental moral belief, a basic conviction of one’s conscience. Socrates is following his conscience, in refusing to escape prison with his friend Crito. Similarly, Socrates noted at his trial, in the Apology, that were he allowed to walk free so long as he stopped practicing philosophy, that he could not and would not do it; and that, as a duty to his god, he would continue to encourage his fellow citizens to care more for knowledge than for the comfort of their bodies or the cut of their clothes.
King showed the same devotion to conscience through his work to end racial segregation. King, like Socrates, agreed that it is one’s duty to try to convince the State that an unjust law is unjust; failing that, one must disobey such laws and be willing to accept the punishment for that disobedience. King was on the forefront, leading by example. He was in jail for following his conscience. In his letter, King encouraged fellow Christians to act on their faith instead of simply doing nothing, waiting for problems to solve themselves. King likens himself and the civil rights movement to Socrates’ self definition of ‘gadfly’ in that he is creating tension in the hopes of challenging the status quo. He wants others to join him, saying that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
Glossary
Jerkin: a close-fitting jacket or short coat, usually sleeveless, as one of leather worn in the 16th and 17th centuries.
Impunity: immunity from detrimental effects, as of an action.
Vitriolic: very caustic; scathing: vitriolic criticism.
Zeitgeist: the spirit of the time; general trend of thought or feeling characteristic of a particular period of time.
[Return to Writing]