The definition of civil disobedience can vary. In its most basic form, “civil dishonor” is when a person refuses to follow laws or pay taxes. Henry David Thoreau was one of the first to write about civil disobedience, 1849 in his essay, “Civil Disobedience”. However the actions of Socrates and Crito might contradict the morality cited in the law breaking.
Martin Luther King Jr. demonstrates his righteousness through these vigilante actions in protests against the laws of segregation and in “A Mail from Birmingham Jail”. Is civil disobedience justified, however? Does it make sense to ignore the government? What would happen if civil disobedience was extended to a wider audience? What would happen if civil disobedience was extended to a larger scale? Plato’s The Apology accuses Socrates of corrupting the minds and undermining gods of youth by his philosophical teachings. Socrates did make an argument for his case. He also claimed that the Delphi oracle said that Socrates was wiser than anyone else. Socrates declares that he is more intelligent than any other human being. Although we may not be able to know anything good or noble, he assumes he knows it, while I, as I don’t know, don’t even think I know. In this one thing, I think I’m a little wiser than he: “Whatever I don’t know I don’t even pretend I know” (Plato70). He implies that he thinks he is wiser than he actually is.
He still believes he was guilty of Athens. He believed the law was responsible for his existence and accepted his punishment. On the contrary, civil disobedience implies that selfish benefits have priority. Cohen 134. Civil disobedience is an act of self-regard that defames the will of his community. This cannot be right.
Plato’s Crito says that Socrates shows the significance when he’s given the opportunity to escape from jail. “And even those who have been wronged, then, one must not do injustice back, as the many suppose,” he states (Plato 110). Socrates recognizes that injustice caused by injustice would be a challenge to everything he believes in as a philosopher.
Crito is told by he that citizens could choose to break laws they don’t like and these laws would lose their value. The city would then become chaotic. He is also warned that if Crito leaves jail, he will be considered an unwelcomed escapee. He was accused of injustice and he could not continue his teachings. Crito agrees to these terms, and Socrates is shortly thereafter executed by the ingestion hemlock.
Perhaps “selfish” should be used instead of civil. This is because the person who does civil disobedience cares little about the law. Instead, they are focused on their own personal goals and gain. I believe Martin Luther King Junior is an example of such a callous individual whose protests were motivated solely by selfish goals.
This is Jonathan Riedner’s direct statement in his article “Dr. The King was intensely angry at the injustice. Reider further states that King views the American Dream through his black eyes. His writings should be taken seriously. King calls blacks “instruments of somebody else’s dreams”. How is King able to make such a claim and yet continue to ask why blacks are not being given anything?
They gave us no land and they haven’t provided anything.” (Reider). King is a child with an unjustified sense of entitlement. Socrates would tell King it’s unfair to give fourth to laws he doesn’t like at the cost of current laws in society. Because he actually owes them his existence.
Socrates is a god-fearing person. However, this can be interpreted as if he has a greater respect for the gods than his immediate loyalties to the city the laws at Hades will not accept you there. Let it go, Crito. And let us follow the god’s lead” (Plato 112). King also believes in vertical ordering. In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, he states that a just law is one that is man-made and aligns with the moral or God’s law. Both men revere a higher force, but Socrates knew that he had to follow Athens’ laws to respect the gods.
King believes that men have a moral responsibility to violate unjust laws. This is contrary what Romans 13 says: 1-2. “Everyone has to submit himself to governing authorities. God is the only authority.” The authority that is opposed to it is rebelling against God.
If King wanted to be in line with the vertical order, he should have been more Socratic about his protests. Selfish obedience is the pursuit and disregard of one’s personal interests without regard to the general well-being of others. It should not be tolerated.
This claim raises another issue: What do you do if one doesn’t believe laws are fair? Thoreau offers readers three options: amend, transcend or obey. “Unjust laws exisis” Thoreau states that most people believe they should wait to persuade the majority to change them. If they did, the remedy would be worse than what they did.
He encourages people to transcend laws. To get rid of the government (machine), he says. Transcendence means that one acts in deliberate disrespect of the law. This is called civil disobedience. It allows civil disobedients to take the law into its own hands. This is the definition of a vigilante. They are people who take on the law and do not have authority, because they think current officials are incompetent. “A Call for Unity” is a call for honesty and openness in negotiation by Birmingham’s clergymen to stop this behavior.
Both white and black citizens should be reminded to follow the principles and use common sense and law. Even Socrates knew that if Socrates was to escape and leave, it will be shameful for him and Athens. They want the radicals taking Thoreau’s 2nd option and amending the laws.
Democracy allows for amendments to laws. Socrates mentions that we citizens owe the existence of the laws and city to them. We must follow the laws. Democracy is the voice and will of the individual. Thoreau does make this point. Thoreau argues that voting is a form of gaming. If you don’t vote, you should not be expected to respect the majority. To act in this way is weakness, he says.
Why not work so hard to win the majority’s vote, instead of breaking laws? King and Thoreau could not have been sent to prison if they hadn’t put in as much effort as they did trying get votes. Voting is the best way to express our opinions. We must follow and amend. Civil disobedience cannot be tolerated because so long as the lawful channels are open, disregard and disrespect for it cannot ever be right.
The Purge tells the story of what would happen to government if it was not there for twelve hours. During this period, people murder, steal, or commit other violent crimes. While this is a small film, it shows how civil disobedience might look on a larger scale. The world would crumble if people didn’t believe in the laws they were following. Some people would not be able to write peaceful stories in their Walden Pond cabin. It would be fair to say that Thomas Hobbes has a similar view.
Both Thoreau and King were selfish people who took the law into their own hands. I am not going to pretend that I have reviewed all possible cases that would justify their civil disobedience. The primary issues regarding King and Thoreau were resolved. Socrates stresses that citizens owe everything to their cities and civil disobedience is not acceptable.