Would King Drink the Hemlock?
29 ramsini
Socrates, according to the interpretation of Richard Kraut as expressed in Socrates and the State, maintained many complex views about the relationship between the individual and the state. He believed that there were certain times when laws could be disobeyed and other times when they could not, and he also held opinions about the steps one must take if disobedience is justified. When Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” he ascribed some of his views to the teachings of Socrates. Plato presents many of Socrates’ views about a citizen’s obligations to the state in the Crito, which is where Socrates explains his political philosophy, and why he must drink the hemlock the state administers to him as punishment for his disobedience. Through an examination of King’s letter and Kraut’s interpretation of Socrates’ views as presented in the Crito, we can discover that these men agree on their philosophy of committing an injustice and a citizen’s responsibilities toward the state, but disagree on the motives behind some of their actions, and their distinctions between harm and injustice Socrates believed that one should never commit an injustice, and this includes never returning an injustice for one committed against him (Plato 136). He believed that since people must never, under any circumstances, commit an injustice, if they are given a chance, they must always choose to suffer an injustice rather than commit an injustice themselves. This is because “doing what is unjust harms one’s soul, but the soul is not corrupted if one is the victim of injustice” (Kraut 37-38). King displays his agreement with Socrates when he states that “it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends” (King 243). He discusses the differences between just and unjust laws, and explains that his end goal is for everyone to be treated justly (King 235). He wanted blacks to be able to live in a society where they would have the same rights as white citizens, and he broke the laws of the state because the state was acting unjustly by withholding basic human rights from black citizens. King also vehemently disagreed with people who appeared to be just instead of actually doing the right thing. He says that “it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends” (King 243). People thought that they were behaving justly by sticking to their “morals” during a time when others were suffering injustice at the hands of the close-minded, but they were really the ones behaving unjustly by keeping immoral laws and institutions in place. King completely agrees with Socrates that one should never do injustice, and goes even further to say that when people believe they are behaving justly by maintaining a neutral position on discriminatory laws, their inaction is simply masked injustice because they are helping to keep these unjust laws on the books and in practice. Socrates believed that there is sometimes an agreement made between the state and the citizen; and in the case of the Crito, the contract was called the principle of just agreements. This agreement states that the citizen must obey the laws of the state unless a specific law requires him to commit an act of injustice. If the state does ask him to commit an injustice, since he/she has made an agreement to obey, the citizen must persuade the state as to why he/she cannot, or in some cases, could not obey the law (Kraut 86). The way by which a person comes to have an agreement with the state is not by explicitly stating that he/she agrees
aegis 2006
Larsa Ramsini
