Civil Disobedience to Unjust Laws: Both a Duty and a Virtue
Civil Disobedience to Unjust Laws: Both a Duty and a Virtue
Martin Luther King Jr. once said: “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”[1] Throughout the Crito, Plato seems to disagree with MLK. Plato argues that Socrates should not attempt to escape the death sentence that has been handed down to him by the court of Athens. Plato premises his argument in the assumption that evil, even in response to evil, is never justified. He then says that since the nation raised you, protected you, and even allowed you to come into being, that you owe the nation absolute obedience. He continues that it is always evil to break the laws of your nation, and thus breaking the law, any law, is never justified. Socrates’s claim that you owe limitless obedience to the state is flawed because it does not consider unjust states or unjust laws, and because it uses “essentially contested topic” words such as evil, just, and right without defining their meaning.
Plato Relies on Essentially Contested Topics (ECTs)
Plato uses a variety of ECT[2] words without defining their meaning, making it exceedingly difficult to agree or disagree with his argument. In this section of my paper, I intend to define two of these key terms to clarify my quarrel with Plato’s argument. The ECTs that most stand out in the Crito are the words evil and (un)just.
Evil is typically defined as immoral or wicked. If this definition is applied to the Crito, it is noticeable that several illogical statements arise; to restore their logos, we must refine the definition of evil. Firstly, Socrates asserts that “warding off evil by evil is (n)ever right.”[3] An example will describe my quibble with this statement. Imagine that you are fighting for your life against an armed murderer. Is your first instinct to fight back and if necessary, to kill him for the purpose of preserving your own life? Killing, or for that matter hurting, any human being could be considered an act of evil by the classical definition. Does this mean that no one is permitted to practice self-defense? If we apply the classical definition, it seems that even police officers or our nation’s military would be considered unjust any time they wound someone or take a life. This upends the entire system of law and order. Law cannot exist without enforcement; but if evil is never justified, then law enforcement, which practices evil acts if taken in a vacuum, is also unjust. Additionally, Socrates claims that “neither may any one yield or retreat or leave his rank … he must do what his city and his country order [of] him.”[4] But, if evil is never justified, how can this be true? Can the state order you to commit evil? I argue that the only solution is to define evil as an action or thing that is malicious and intended to hurt someone and is committed with no justifiable reason.
Now that there is a new working definition of evil, Socrates’s claim that, “evil, even to ward off evil, is never justified”[5] has had its logos restored. So, is disobeying the law, and by extension, the state, always evil? No. By the new definition, if you or your child are starving and you need to steal a piece of bread to survive, you can do so without being evil because you had a justifiable reason – you would have died otherwise. I posit that there are four acceptable reasons that you can break the law and still not be evil: (I) protecting yourself from great harm; (II) protecting a member of your family from great harm; (III) protecting a group of people from great harm (e.g., killing an active shooter); and (IV) protecting yours or someone else’s property from severe damage.
The next ECT I would like to define is the concept of justice or what makes something (un)just. Just is typically defined as something that is based on or is behaving according to what is morally right and fair. Socrates seems to agree with this statement by saying, “injustice is always an evil and dishonor to him who acts unjustly.”[6] I assert that something in this statement is faulty because using the typical definition of just, stealing is unjust, but stealing does not necessarily need to be evil, as argued previously. To be clear, this does mean that stealing would be unjust, but stealing is still not evil. Something can be unjust and not be evil; a thing does not need to be one or the other. Similarly, something can be evil and considered to be just; for instance, nearly all forms of slavery in states where slavery is legal. Having slaves was legal in America, and thus it was technically just. Slavery is obviously immoral however, so it was evil. For example, Harriet Tubman helped slaves escape the South and was always striving to achieve a better life for the freed slaves; thus, she is not evil. However, she does break the law of the South, and is thusly unjust. The faulty aspect of this argument is the argument itself; the statement “injustice is always an evil”[7] is false.
What does this mean with regard to obeying the laws of your state? It means that disobeying the law is an unjust action, regardless of the law or state. What does this mean for justice? It means that justice is something excluded for the moral citizens of a good and fair state; a good and fair state meaning that the state does not levy unfair laws (laws that go against morals).
Plato Fails to Consider Unjust States or Unjust Laws
Socrates argues that you should give the state obedience because it’s almost like another parent to you. He claims that there is never justification for disobeying your state even if the state is evil and unfair, and that if you disobey the state, you are evil and unjust. Thus, all rebellions and revolutions against tyranny would be and have been unjust and evil. I disagree and argue that rebellions against tyrannical states should be considered to be just if the state is not fulfilling its duties that require citizens to be obedient in the first place. According to Socrates, a state is owed obedience because it (I) allows the marriage of one’s mother and father; (II) provides a system to nurture and educate its youth; (III) protects the people from harm; (IV) lets the people leave the state at will; and (V) gives its people a “share in every good that we (the state and the laws personified) have to give.”[8] I assert that if a state fails to provide for even one of these conditions, then rebellion or revolution is just and justified. Based on these conditions, some revolutions or rebellions have been unjust. For example, the January 6th, 2021 storming of the US Capitol. This was an attempted rebellion against the state. None of the conditions were met so, the storming was an unjust and evil rebellion. On the other hand, the American Revolution was just in that Britain had violated condition (V). Britain was practicing, as the saying goes, taxation without representation. Britain was not giving the American colonists a share in the good of the nation, and thus the American Revolution was justified.
In conclusion, Socrates’s argument in the Crito that you owe limitless obedience to the state is not correct because Socrates uses “essentially contested topic” words without defining their meaning, and because he fails to consider tyrannical states or unjust laws. The people’s obedience depends on the state’s ability to fulfill the five main duties to the people and if it does not, revolution or rebellion is justified. However, as a single citizen, it is only not evil to break the law of your state if your reason is one of the four already discussed. Or, as Oscar Wilde once said: “Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man’s original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion.”[9]
[1] King, Martin Luther. Letter from a Birmingham Jail, www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html.
[2] Siddiqi , Muhammad Usman Amin. “Introductory Lecture.” Canvas, Oregon State University, canvas.oregonstate.edu/courses/1815657/pages/week-1-introductory-lecture?module_item_id=20861381.
[3] Six Great Dialogues: Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Symposium and the Republic, by Plato and Benjamin Jowett, BN Publishing, 2010, pp. 29.
[4] id., pp. 31.
[5] id., pp. 29.
[6] id., pp. 29.
[7] id., pp. 29.
[8] id., pp. 31.
[9] The Soul of Man under Socialism, by Oscar Wilde, Mint Editions, 2021.
Bibliography
King, Martin Luther. Letter from a Birmingham Jail, www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html.
Siddiqi , Muhammad Usman Amin. “Introductory Lecture.” Canvas, Oregon State University, canvas.oregonstate.edu/courses/1815657/pages/week-1-introductory-lecture?module_item_id=20861381.
Six Great Dialogues: Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Symposium and the Republic, by Plato and Benjamin Jowett, BN Publishing, 2010, pp. 29.
The Soul of Man under Socialism, by Oscar Wilde, Mint Editions, 2021.