It is often the case that philosophical judgments are self-contradictory. The matter is that philosophy as such is a very contradictory science and what at first may seem true, turns out to be absolute lies after thorough consideration. A number of philosophers are blamed for being inconsistent in their arguments because their works often view one and the same issue from different perspectives, which results in their expressing the view opposite to the one that was already expressed. This can especially be seen from the arguments that Socrates makes in Crito and Apology. In Apology, for instance, he tells how he refused to take part in the unjust killing thus going against the Thirty Commissioners’ order; here he states that if the law is unjust, there is nothing wrong in disobeying it. In Crito, however, he agrees to receive the unjust punishment stating that he is obliged to obey the law, even though he is totally convinced that this law is unjust to him. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates’ views represented in these two cases cannot be made consistent with each other: he ought to have either refused to obey both or agreed to obey both; I will also consider the opposing view on this problem and I am going to contest this view.
Firstly, Socrates does not seem to have a definite position regarding the obedience to the law. If a person is firmly convinced in something, he/she should always act in the same way. This is not true of Socrates, however. In his dialogue with Crito he states that any person should obey the laws of his/her country, irrespective of whether he does or does not consider these laws just; he/she should obey the laws in any case, unless it is possible to prove the wrongness of these laws. Socrates receives punishment which, as he believes, he does not deserve. Here is a question then: being such a wise person, could Socrates fail to prove that the law which made him bear this punishment was unjust? In this case, Socrates obeys the law. At the same time, in Apology, Socrates adopts a completely different position; now he goes against the law, even though once he stated that every citizen has to abide by the law because he/she lives in the society that nurtured him/her, gave him/her education, and made a full-fledged member of the society. Therefore, Socrates’ choosing when to obey and when not to obey the law shows that he does not admit that there is universal law; this contradicts the ideas he expresses about the obedience to the laws and means that his arguments are inconsistent.
Secondly, a citizen him/herself cannot decide when to obey or when to disobey the law. Socrates has violated this principle, although, partially, he was the one who created it. For example, Socrates expresses a view that disobedience to the law is destructive for the society. This is connected with the fact that people can remain the members of their society as long as they agree and observe the laws that the society imposes on them. Consequently, once a person regards the law as unnecessary and breaks this law, he/she stops being the member of the society because he/she loses the bond with it. Thus, Socrates expresses an idea that it is in the right of a citizen to choose whether to obey or to disobey the law. Nevertheless, he chooses to disobey it, irrespective of what his reason is. This means that Socrates’ arguments regarding the obedience to the law are contradictory in general; this is why there is a large possibility that two arguments under consideration are inconsistent with each other as well. Besides, their inconsistency lies on the surface because it is evident that these two views are contradictory. So, taking into account the contradiction between most of the Socrates’ arguments made about the obedience to the law, as well as Socrates’ going against his own principles, it can be stated that two arguments under analysis are inconsistent.
However, there exists an opposing view that these arguments are consistent with each other. The proponents of this argument state that Socrates’ views under consideration may be made consistent with each other because they concern absolutely different types of obedience to the law. Thus, in case with Apology, Socrates refuses to take part in the unjust killing and thus shows his disobedience to the law. The supporters of this view state that unjust killing is breaking the law itself this is why Socrates’ disagreeing with the unjust orders of the legitimate authority is his unwillingness to break the law and to participate in the murder of an innocent person. As far as Crito is concerned, Socrates remains true to his principles wishing to stay a member of his society and obeying to its laws no matter how unjust they may seem. This is to make us believe that in these two cases Socrates meant absolutely different kinds of justice and obedience to the laws. In addition, this means that he stayed loyal to his own moral principles: he did not break the law and act unjustly in Apology and he showed himself as a real citizen of his country and a member of his society. I believe that such a view is erroneous because supporting it would be the same as calling black something that is white for it will be as contradictory to itself as Socrates’ arguments are to each other. Socrates did what he meant: he went against the law in Apology and then he agreed to the unjust punishment in Crito. These are the same types of justice and obedience to the law this is why the argument that Socrates’ view are consistent hardly makes any sense.
Thus, it has been proven that Socrates’ arguments regarding the obedience to the law are inconsistent. First of all, the philosopher’s position regarding the obedience to the law is unsteady as such: he chooses when to obey and when not to obey the law, which is incorrect according to his own principles. And secondly, such a behavior of his shows that it is not the first time that he violates his principles because, stating that breaking the laws is destructive for the society, Socrates still chooses to break it (irrespective of his reason), even though it was namely him who posited that citizens should not choose when to obey the law and that they should abide by it implicitly if they wish to stay the members of their society and the citizens of their country. This means that Socrates is inconsistent in a number of his arguments, including the ones about the obedience to the law. Finally, the opposing argument that Socrates’ judgments in Apology and Crito are consistent with each other has been refuted; the proponents of this argument justify the inconsistency of Socrates’ ideas stating that he remained loyal to his moral principles and did not break laws in any of the cases; it has been shown that this argument is contradictory in itself and, thus, cannot be regarded as valid. Therefore, now it can be concluded that inconsistency in the Socrates’ arguments does exist.