APPRAISAL OF “RULE OF LAW” IN SOCRATES

Résumé

The aim of this paper is to examine the rule of law in Socrates. This examination is with particular reference to the scholarly divergence regarding whether Socrates advocated for unconditional obedience to law or pioneered civil disobedience. Through critical analysis of Plato’s Apology and Crito, this study investigates Socrates’ arguments for legal obligation and reconciles apparent contradictions between the two dialogues. The scope of the study encompasses Socrates’ controversial vow in the Apology to continue philosophizing despite judicial threat, his defiance of the Thirty Tyrants, his opposition to the illegal trial of the Arginousai generals, and the comprehensive arguments for obedience presented in the Crito including the personification of laws, the parent-child analogy, and the agreement argument based on continued residence. On appraisal, it is obvious that Socrates consistently maintained that all laws must be obeyed, even unjust ones, not because they are just, but because they are duly enacted laws necessary for the state’s survival. However, this doctrine of exceptionless obedience is critically evaluated as morally unrealistic and potentially dangerous, particularly given historical atrocities committed under legal sanctions. The paper concludes that while Socrates successfully reconciles his actions in the Apology with the Crito’s obedience principle by demonstrating the illegality of orders, hence he defied his uncompromising stance on legal obedience. Legal obedience in Socrates remains philosophically problematic because of its inadequacy in addressing situations where laws themselves perpetuate injustice and at the same time offering limited guidance for contemporary challenges to legal authority.