Is it right to act in ones own interest, or obey the state? essay
To begin with, it worth being mentioned that in this paper we are going to talk about one of the most outstanding personalities in the entire humans’ history. Being the founder of western philosophy, Ancient Greek thinker Socrates also was outstanding logician. Notwithstanding all regalia and achievements, probably the most exciting about this personality are the circumstances of his death. At age of 70, Socrates was charged by Athenians with teaching young people of disrespect to ancient Gods. Being sentenced to death, Socrates had two opportunities to escape it. At first, he was proposed to refuse own philosophy in exchange to reprieve. At second, Socrates had the option to escape from prison with the help of his fellow students. Socrates rejected both of these opportunities and bravely executed the decision of Athenian folk. Herewith, the most interesting here is not just the fact of Socrates’ choice. It is much more relevant to think about the motives he was guided with. The case of Ancient Greek philosopher raises rather curious moral dilemma – is it right to act in ones own interest, or to obey the state? In this paper, we’ll try to think on this issue, however, it is assumed that the absolute answer will hardly be found.
Thinking about the general outlined issue, we obviously should make some references to Socrates’ case. In other words, it is better to think on next question – Was ancient Greek philosopher right to obey the state of Athens and take the poison, or should he have acted to preserve his own interest by choosing exile or escaping? Speaking about this outstanding personality we have no moral right to judge his decision just from our own point of view. In this order, it is extremely important to find out the motives and backgrounds of his decision. Unfortunately, Socrates did not left us some original sources or some sort of records of his views and thoughts. His philosophy can be learnt only from works written by his followers. In the aspect of given assignment, the most relevant of them are Apology, Crito, and Phaedo. Each of these three ancient readings contains retrospective to Socrates ideas, which determined making of fatal choice.
Apology allows us to learn the speech of Socrates, when he just received his verdict. Here is a little part the part from his response, when Socrates makes emphasizes to real causes of his sentence: “You would have liked to hear me weep and wail, doing and saying all sorts of things which I regard as unworthy of myself, but which you are used to hearing from other people. But I did not think then that I ought to stoop to servility because I was in danger, and I do not regret now the way in which I pleaded my case. I would much rather die as the result of this defense than live as the result of the other sort.In a court of law, just as in warfare, neither I nor any other ought to use his wits to escape death by any means” (Plato).
In fact, cited extract from Socrates’ speech allows to learn a little more about ancient Greek philosopher’s views. Unfortunately contemporary humans did not gather enough sources to evaluate the entire volume of Socrates’ ideas. In the aspect of mentioned words, he appears as a person of high moral values, mostly centered around the virtue of dignity. In addition, readers also can trace famous Socrates’ ironic modesty, which in this case was devoted to erroneous wisdom of Athenian citizens about the real causes of his verdict. The main idea about previously cited extract is outlined by Socrates latter request to Athenian citizens: “The difficulty is not so much to escape death; the real difficulty is to escape from doing wrong”.
Another relevant quote from Apology looks in next way: “We should reflect that there is much reason to hope for a good result on other grounds as well. Death is one of two things. Either it is annihilation, and the dead have no consciousness of anything, or, as we are told, it is really a change–a migration of the soul from this place to another. Now if there is no consciousness but only a dreamless sleep, death must be a marvelous gain. I suppose that if anyone were told to pick out the night on which he slept so soundly as not even to dream, and then to compare it with all the other nights and days of his life, and then were told to say, after due consideration, how many better and happier days and nights than this he had spent in the course of his life–well, I think that the Great King himself, to say nothing of any private person, would find these days and nights easy to count in comparison with the rest. If death is like this, then, I call it gain, because the whole of time, if you look at it in this way, can be regarded as no more than one single night” (Plato).
As well as previously placed quote, this one allows to address interesting points about Socrates’ philosophic study. At first, readers are able to trace his famous devotion to truth and dispassionate reasoning. Being clear and pretty convincing with his thoughts about the meaning of his sentence, Socrates doesn’t see nothing horrendous with the decision of fellow Athenians. Moreover, this part allows to challenge whether his decision about death acceptance was contradictory to his own interests. His genuine treatment of death as “a great gain” makes its even more preferable to life eventually. In this way, Socrates’ obey to sentence totally corresponds his own interests – one the one hand he remains his adherence to courage and dignity, on the other hand Socrates’ will be rewarded with better type of existence. Thereby, Ancient Greek philosopher concludes: “Nothing can harm a good man either in life or after death”.
That are the core ideas of Socrates’ about his destiny from apology. Now, it would be relevant to go to Crito analysis. As well as previously analyzed reading, this one also contains some interesting philosopher’s views to think about his obey and made choice. Actually, the main points about Socrates’ conversation from Crito is devoted to the real values and features of a “good life”. According to philosopher, the virtues to correspond are justice and honor. Unconditional following of appropriate principles is traced in next part from mentioned reading. In this extract Socrates’ responses Crito’s arguments about propriety of possible escape: “I am and always have been one of those natures who must be guided by reason, whatever the reason may be which upon reflection appears to me to be the best; and now that this fortune has come upon me, I cannot put away the reasons which I have before given: the principles which I have hitherto honored and revered I still honor, and unless we can find other and better principles on the instant, I am certain not to agree with you; no, not even if the power of the multitude could inflict many more imprisonments, confiscations, deaths, frightening us like children with hobgoblin terrors” (Plato). According to Socrates’, a “good life” guided by principles of honor and justice is the only permissible form of existence. Nothing else matters in fact, and some consensus between morality and instinct of self – preservation are hard to be found. In this order, we have to answer one more time – Was Socrates’ obey to state contradictory to his own interests? The interest of living a decent life seemingly was the only significant for Socrates.
Here is another interesting part form Crito: “For neither will you nor any that belong to you be happier or holier or juster in this life, or happier in another, if you do as Crito bids. Now you depart in innocence, a sufferer and not a doer of evil; a victim, not of the laws, but of men. But if you go forth, returning evil for evil, and injury for injury, breaking the covenants and agreements which you have made with us, and wronging those whom you ought least to wrong, that is to say, yourself, your friends, your country, and us, we shall be angry with you while you live, and our brethren, the laws in the world below, will receive you as an enemy; for they will know that you have done your best to destroy us” (Plato). Except already noted points about philosopher’s ideas about life and morality, this part presents his as extremely sentiment person about the value of state and laws. As he states, he became the victim of people, not of laws or state. As the result, Socrates had no reason to violate his obligations of a citizen. According to this philosopher, connection between human and official institutions of social contract can be compared to connection between child and a parent. In this regard, Socrates’ obey was also determined by unconditional love and trust to main institutions of commonwealth doctrine. The value of state is undisputable to Socrates and he could not afford to go against the main principles of common co-living, which were so strongly honored by him.
The Phaedo is the last reading to be addressed in the aspect of given assignment and provided analysis of Socrates’ motives about his decision to take a poison. In fact noted reading serves to be the sum up of all ideas expressed by philosopher in Apology and Crito: “I do not consider my present fate a misfortune if I cannot persuade even you, and you are afraid that it is more difficult to deal with me than before. You seem to think me inferior to the swans in prophecy. They sing before too, but when they realize that they must die they sing most and most beautifully, as they rejoice that they are about to depart to join the god whose servants they are. … And as I believe myself to be a fellow servant with the swans and dedicated to the same god, and have received from my master Apollo a gift of prophecy not inferior to theirs, I am no more despondent than they on leaving life” (Plato). In the respect, the death sentence is not the way of punishment to Socrates’. He recognizes it as the mistake of a fellow folks, but not as the way to harm the great philosopher: “Then when death comes to man, the mortal part of him dies, it seems, but his deathless part goes away safe and indestructible, yielding the place to death” (Plato).
Being cleat with the real motives and reasoning of Socrates’ choice to accept his unjust sentence, we come to the conclusion that his decision was not so ridiculous as it may seem at the first glance. Obviously, his action, or better to say the absence of it, was contradictory to human’s biological and psychological instincts. However, the case of this great philosopher shows that the domain of real moral virtues is often much more valuable for those who aimed to keep the concept of “good” and decent life. It is interesting that the decision of Socrates’ is even can be supported from point of view of other philosophers. In this paper, we will draw the parallels with Confucius philosophic ideas. In the aspect of given assignment, we are mostly interested in his views on social and political philosophy. Most of Confucius’ (551-479 BCE) convictions on appropriate issues are gathered in Lunyu or Analects records. Generally, the main idea of Confucius social philosophy is centered around the concept of ren – “loving others” in other words. The golden Rule of ren states: “What you do not wish to yourself do not to others” (Schwartz). Confucius promoted self – restrained way of life, which was mostly based on the ritual (li). That’s what this great philosopher wrote at this part: “Subjecting oneself to ritual does not, however, mean suppressing one’s desires but instead learning how to reconcile one’s own desires with the needs of one’s family and community” (Schwartz). Confucius treats person as the irreplaceable part of common being institutions, and the ability to follow the needs of community in exchange to personal wants is the tool that makes the existence of social structures possible. Herewith, he calls to be fully dedicative and sacrificed with appropriate principles following: “Confucius sacrificed to the dead as if they were present. He sacrificed to the spirits as if the spirits were present. The Master said, ‘I consider my not being present at the sacrifice as though there were no sacrifice” (Schwartz).
At the first glance, it is rather difficult to get the similarities between Socrates’ and Confucius philosophical views. One stands for dispassionate reasoning, another is concentrated on relations between individual and society. However, some deeper look will help to determine common points. Both philosophers are contradictory approached to any sort of egoism manifestation. In addition, both of them are truly dedicative to the values they faithful with. Really, the contents of two philosophic studies have not so many common points, but the general approach to morality and virtues make them people of one way of thinking. From this point of view, we can assume that Confucius would support Socrates’ decision to remain faithful with own convictions, even notwithstanding fatal meaning of his choice.
As for the political philosophy, Confucius would share the ideas of Socrates without a doubt. We have already told a little about Socrates’ attitudes to laws and states in previous parts. As for the Confucius, his concept of political philosophy was centered on the self-discipline doctrine. All political troubles of that time were explained by him from the perspective of personalities, which were not worthy of taking official positions. Confucius was totally convinced that the only effective model of governing is virtue (de) guided: “He who governs by means of his virtue is, to use an analogy, like the pole-star: it remains in its place while all the lesser stars do homage to it” (Schwartz). The general idea of Confucius about political philosophy can be expressed through next quote: “If the people be led by laws, and uniformity among them be sought by punishments, they will try to escape punishment and have no sense of shame. If they are led by virtue, and uniformity sought among them through the practice of ritual propriety, they will possess a sense of shame and come to you of their own accord” (Schwartz). So, what is common between Socrates’ and Confucius’ visions? Seemingly, these two great personalities are tied with tremendous respect, faith and even love to social structures of common living, with state as the head. Remember, Socrates did not blamed laws for his fortune. He reasonably found the roots of tragedy in people, who made appropriate decision. Pretty same approach was performed by ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius – state and laws are administrated by people, and only these people should take responsibility for occurred injustice. In this way, both Socrates’ and Confucius are unconditionally obliged to the institutions of state and law. Thereby, Confucius would support Socrates’ obey to state with his decision to submit official sentence.
At the end, it worth being said that the case of Socrates’ death remains incredibly disputable even after thousands years are passed. This issue has two different sides of a coin, and each of them has reasonable ground for existence. From own personal point of view, Ancient Greek philosopher’s decision was right. The most considerable point here is the way of reasoning. Sharing the virtues, beliefs, and views of Socrates, allows to see his decision the only possible to remain faithful with own convictions. On the other hand, it is difficult to assume that even one of contemporaries is equally strong to be so dedicated to own principles. In this regard, Socrates is worth to be called a progenitor of morality and virtues to next civilizations. His decision was not contradictory to his own interests. The greatest challenge he faced was the necessity to remain faithful with proclaimed ideals. To his honor, Socrates’ was enough courageous to handle the last and the hardest task in his life.
