Upload
anthony-ward
View
111
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Ward 1
Anthony Ward
Professor Drake
HIS 2321- Western Civilization to 1715
21 June 2008
Socrates and Martin Luther King, Jr.-A Comparison of Ethics
Ward 2
When comparing two notable icons of their times such as Socrates and Martin Luther King,
Jr., one should ensure to keep an open perspective with respect to sociologic viewpoints and how
the two lived their lives. If looking at it in the literal sense, we could easily conclude that
Socrates lived and practiced a far greater moral and ethical code of life when compared to that of
Martin Luther King, Jr. In weighing the contributions each made to their respective societies
however, the comparison appears more in favor of Martin Luther King, Jr. While researching
this particular issue, I quickly became aware of a duality within my intended paper; that being
not only a comparison of ethics and morality, but also an issue on the validity of civil
disobedience and the impact thereof.
According to co-authors Samuel Stumpf and James Fieser in their book entitled
“Philosophy:History and Problems”, they relate that:
Socrates wrote nothing. Most of what we know about him has been preserved by
three of his famous younger contemporaries, Aristophenes, Xenophon, and most
importantly, Plato. […] From Xenophon comes the portrait of a loyal soldier who
has a passion for discussing the requirements of morality and who inevitably
attracted the younger people to seek out his advice. Plato confirms this general
portrait and in addition pictures Socrates as a man with a deep sense of mission
and absolute moral purity. (Stumpf 35)
In the spring of 399 B.C., when Socrates was seventy years old, he was accused of impiety
and of corrupting the youth of Athens. Socrates was tried before a court of five hundred and one.
After Socrates was found guilty, the penalty still remained to be determined. The convicted was
to propose a counter penalty and “The Apology” is substantially the speech that Socrates made
Ward 3
before the court. According to Lacy Baldwin Smith in her book titled “Fools, Martyrs, Traitors:
The Story of Martyrdom in the Western World” some historians believe that Socrates was never
meant to stand trial, noting that the accusations made against him were a legal maneuver by
political contemporaries to force him into exile and thereby rid Athens of one of its most
unpopular citizens at the time. She writes:
Unfortunately Socrates refused to cooperate, and he insisted upon a trial, which,
with Plato’s skill as dramatic narrator, he transformed from a travesty of party
politics and personal malice into a public forum to demonstrate that only fools
and bigots could possibly believe that he was guilty of impiety or corrupting the
moral and spiritual fiber of the city. On the contrary, he alone possessed the
double-edged truth: the only knowledge worth knowing is the realization that
wisdom belongs to the gods alone, and mankind is far better off trying to practice
virtue based on humility and endeavoring to concern itself with the destiny of the
soul than with silly earthly material affairs. (Smith 31-32)
Plato’s “Apology” shows Socrates speaking to the Athenian court, defending himself against
charges of introducing new religious beliefs and misleading the younger generation. Although
the “Apology” reads as essentially a monologue, Plato casts Socrates’ speech as an implied
dialogue with his accusers, the assembly, and the larger community of the city. And because the
charges call into question Socrates’ lifelong public career as a philosopher, the “Apology” is
Plato’s most explicit defense of philosophical inquiry as essential to the well being of society.
Ward 4
In a Platonic dialogue, no single character represents the author’s opinions. Instead, we
encounter a series of conversations and speeches in which the characters affirm or deny one
another’s statements while engaging in cross-examination. Every statement is subjected to
ongoing inquiry; at its conclusion, a dialogue leaves the impression that more avenues for
investigation have been opened than existed at the beginning. The character of Socrates, as
written by Plato, is portrayed as the sharpest questioner and often seems to have the upper hand.
However, even when he presents fully formed theories, they are put forward only as hypotheses
to be examined, not as doctrine. In fact, as previously noted, Socrates continuously states that his
only wisdom is in knowing what he does not know and he appears to willingly join with others in
the pursuit of truth.
I.F. Stone, in his book titled “The Trial of Socrates”, explores this statement even further and
acknowledges that Socrates assisted in his own demise by insulting his accusers and the court.
He notes:
But Socrates, in dealing with the question “what is knowledge?” went off in an
opposite direction. Real knowledge, Socrates taught, could be obtained only
through absolute definition. If one could not define a thing absolutely, then one
really didn’t know what it was. Then Socrates demonstrated that such knowledge
was unobtainable, even by him. Modestly, he claimed that, in this sense, all he
knew was that he didn’t know. Virtue was knowledge, but real knowledge was
inaccessible. Even this much of the truth could be grasped only, if at all, by a few.
So behind his immeasurable modesty there lurked an equally immeasurable
conceit. (Stone, 39-40)
Ward 5
Socrates’ conceit is brash, but poignant in his address to the court regarding his reputation as
being wise. Stone further writes:
In Plato’s “Apology”, Socrates says the oracle was asked an enigmatic question
and gave an enigmatic answer, or at least Socrates chose to treat it as such. The
question was whether “there were anyone wiser than I.” The answer was “that
there was no one wiser.” Plato’s version differs in grace and whimsicality, or
irony, but not in substance from Xenophon’s. In Plato, Socrates puts the story
diffidently, as if to disarm the court. He asks the jurors not to “make a tumult”-
using the same Greek verb, thorubeo, as does the Xenophonic account- “if I seem
to you to be boasting” (which of course he was). Socrates is apologetic that such a
question was even asked the oracleand blames this on Chaerephon, the disciple
who dared broach it […] So blame for the boastfulness is shifted to Chaerephon.
[…] Why should a reputation for wisdom get a man into trouble in a city like
Athens, a city to which philosophers flocked from all over Greece and were not
welcomed but richly rewarded as teachers and popular lecturers? […] The answer
seems to be that Socrates used his special kind of “wisdom”- his sophia or skill as
a logician and philosopher- for a special political purpose: to make all the leading
men of the city appear to be ignorant fools. (Stone, 79-81)
In Platonic dialogue, Socrates admits this himself and defends the accusation of impiety
against him by stating:
Ward 6
This inquisition has led to my having many enemies of the worst and most
dangerous kind, and has given occasion also to many calumnies. And I am called
wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess the wisdom which I
find wanting in others: but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise;
and by his answer he intends to show that the wisdom of men is worth little or
nothing; he is not speaking of Socrates, he is only using my name by way of
illustration, as if he said, He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that
his wisdom is in truth worth nothing. And so I go about the world, obedient to the
God, and search and make inquiry into the wisdom of any one, whether citizen or
stranger, who appears to be wise; and if he is not wise, then in vindication of the
oracle I show him that he is not wise; and my occupation quite absorbs me, and I
have no time to give either to any public matter of interest or to any concern of
my own, but I am in utter poverty by reason of my devotion to the God. (Stumpf,
15)
Socrates spars with his accusers in this manner throughout Plato’s “Apology”, making a
mockery of all and demonstrating his unwillingness to compromise his ethics for the good of the
court or their perceived accusations. He placed a valued emphasis on Athenian law, regardless of
his own convictions and saw it as his duty to uphold such. Stone submits that:
Socrates was sensitive to the charge that he had always stood apart from the
political life of the city. At his trial- according to Plato’s “Apology”- he cited two
instances of participation in politics, once against the democracy, once against the
dictatorship of the Thirty. These were, by his own account, the only occasions on
Ward 7
which he took an active part in the affairs of his city. In both cases participation
was forced upon him under circumstances not of his own free choice. But when
confronted by the duty, he acted justly and with courage.
The first occasion, in 406 B.C. came during the trial of the generals who had
commanded the Athenian fleet at the battle of Arginusae. They were accused of
failing to pick up survivors and the bodies of the dead after the battle. The
generals claimed that rescue was made impossible by stormy seas. Socrates was a
member of the prytaneis, the board of fifty that presided at the trial. These were
chosen by lot. The issue which put Socrates’ mettle to the test was whether the
generals had the right to be tried separately.
To try them together was manifestly unfair. Each individual commander had a
right to be judged on the basis of what he himself actually had done under the
specific circumstances in the area of his responsibility. The Athenian boule, or
council, in preparing the case for trial by the assembly, had given into public
indignation against the generals and decided that they were to be tried together.
But when the trial opened before the assembly, a resolute dissenter challenged the
mass trial as invalid under established Athenian law and procedure.[…] Socrates
alone held out to the last against this illegal and unjust procedure.
The second occasion on which Socrates was compelled to confront his duty as a
citizen involved a wealthy metic, or resident alien, Leon of Salamis, under the
rule of the Thirty. So narrow was the public support for the dictatorship that it
Ward 8
could hope to survive only through the intimidating presence in Athens of a
Spartan garrison. To pay the expenses of the garrison, it proceeded to “liquidate”
rich resident noncitizen traders, and then expropriate their estates to pay the
Spartan occupiers.
“After the oligarchy was established,” Socrates tells his judges in Plato’s
“Apology”, “the Thirty sent for me with four others to come to the rotunda and
ordered us to bring Leon the Salaminian…to be put to death.” The thirty did not
need citizens’ posse for the arrest. The thirty had bullyboy squads with whips and
daggers to terrorize the citizenry. These could have easily arrested Leon. Why did
they want Socrates to take part? “They gave many such orders to others also,”
Socrates explains, “because they wished to implicate as many in their crimes as
they could.” […] Socrates resisted, but minimally, not so much as a political but
as a private act. Instead of protesting the order, he simply left the rotunda and
quietly went home, and took no part in the arrest. This, when stripped of his
boastfulness, was the substance of his own account. “Then I, however, showed
again, by action,” Socrates says, “not in word only, that I do not care a whit for
death if that be not to do anything unjust or unholy. For that government, with all
its power, did not frighten me into doing anything unjust, but when we came out
of the rotunda, the other four went…and arrested Leon, but I simply went home”
(Stone, 111-113)
Ward 9
In both cases, whether challenging or passive, Socrates made a courageous attempt to
preserve and reaffirm his commitment and respect for the laws as they were applied. On
defending his course in life, Socrates states in the “Apology”:
Someone will say: And are you not ashamed, Socrates, of a course of life which is
likely to bring you an untimely end? To him I may fairly answer: There you are
mistaken: a man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of
living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing
right or wrong- acting the part of a good man or of a bad.[…] If now, when, as I
conceive and imagine, God orders me to fulfill the philosopher’s mission of
searching into myself and other men, I were to desert my post through fear of
death, or any other fear; that would indeed be strange, and I might justly be
arraigned in court for denying the existence of the gods, if I disobeyed the oracle
because I was afraid of death, fancying that I was wise when I was not wise. For
the fear of death is indeed the pretence of wisdom, and not real wisdom, being a
pretence of knowing the unknown; and no one knows whether death, which men
in their fear apprehend to be the greatest evil, may not be the greatest good. Is not
this ignorance of a disgraceful sort, the ignorance which is the conceit that a man
knows what he does not know? And in this respect only I believe myself to differ
from men in general, and may perhaps claim to be wiser than they are:-that
whereas I know but little of the world below, I do not suppose that I know: but I
do know that injustice and disobedience to a better, whether God or man, is evil
Ward 10
and dishonorable, and I will never fear or avoid a possible good rather than a
certain evil. (Stumpf, 20)
His ultimate surrender to Athenian law and his guilty verdict is echoed in his statement:
I tell you that to do as you say would be a disobedience to the God,[…] and if I
say again that daily to discourse about virtue, and of those other things about
which you hear me examining myself and others, is the greatest good of man, and
that the unexamined life is not worth living you are still less likely to believe me.
[…] Wherefore, O judges, be of good cheer about death, and know of a certainty,
that no evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death. (Stumpf, 26-
29)
With history having the propensity to repeat itself, we move to a more modern time frame.
Martin Luther King, Jr. has long been portrayed as a man with vision and passionate
commitment for the civil rights movement in America. Michael Eric Dyson, in his novel titled, “I
May Not Get There With You: The True Martin Luther King, Jr.”, addresses King’s background
by writing:
He drank from the roots of black sacred rhetoric within his own genealogical tree-
he was the son, grandson, and great-grandson of Baptist preachers- and from
legendary figures who branched into his youthful world, including William
Holmes Borders, Sandy Ray, and Gardner Taylor, who is widely viewed as
King’s preaching idol and the “poet laureate of the American pulpit.” Before King
Ward 11
was baptized in the waters of liberal white theological education, he drew deep
from the well of wisdom contained in the words of his church elders. King also
learned the art of masking hard truth in humor. He learned how to dress cultural
observation in colorful cadences of tuneful speech[…] King learned to weave
penetrating and eloquent liberation stories by threading into his sermons extensive
allusion to the Bible and keen political and social analysis. (Dyson, 179)
Cornel West further corroborates this in his essay “The Religious Foundations of the
Thought of Martin Luther King, Jr.” by noting that King was driven by four principal intellectual
and existential sources. He quotes them as being:
The prophetic black church tradition that initially and fundamentally shaped his
world view. The second was a prophetic liberal Christianity that he encountered
in his higher education and scholarly training. The third was a prophetic Gandhian
method of nonviolent social change that he first heard about in a sermon by
Mordecai Johnson, then President of Howard University, and that he utilized in
his intense intellectual struggle with the powerful critiques of Christianity and the
Christian love ethic put forward by Carl Marx and Frederich Nietzche. The last
source was that of prophetic American civil religion, which fuses secular and
sacred history and combines Christian themes of deliverance and salvation with
political ideals of democracy, freedom, and equality. (West, 116)
King utilized his charisma and influences in sermons and political rhetoric to produce
emotional responses in his audiences that resound even today. Being a prominent leader in the
Ward 12
Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), he was invited to participate in the fight for
civil rights in Birmingham, Alabama, where an SCLC meeting was to be held. King was arrested
as a result of a program of sit-ins at luncheon counters and wrote his now famous “Letter From A
Birmingham Jail” as a response to a group of clergymen who had publicly criticized his position.
In 1963 many people to whom King addressed this letter firmly believed that peace and order
might be threatened by granting African Americans the true independence that King insisted
were their rights and guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States. Eventually the
causes that King promoted were victorious. His efforts helped to change attitudes in the South
and spur legislation that has been beneficial to all Americans. His views with regard to
nonviolence spread throughout the whole world, and by the early 1960’s he had become famous
as a man who stood for human rights and human dignity virtually everywhere. Martin Luther
King, Jr. was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 for these efforts. Although King himself
was nonviolent, his program left both him and his followers open to the threat of violence. The
sit-ins and voter registration programs spurred countless bombings, threats, and murders by
members of the white community. King’s life was often threatened, his home bombed, and his
followers harassed. He was assassinated at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee, on April
4, 1968. But before he died he saw- largely through his own efforts, influence, and example- the
face of America change.
In King’s letter, he responds systematically to his accusers his reasons for coming to
Birmingham and the struggles that face not only him, but also our nation itself at the time. He
argues:
Ward 13
I think I should indicate why I am here in Birmingham, since you have been
influenced by the view which argues against “outsiders coming in”. I have the
honor as serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an
organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta,
Georgia. […] Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be
on call to engage in a nonviolent direction program if such were deemed
necessary. […] More basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here.
(King, 50-51)
Like Socrates before him, he criticizes his accusers for not taking a more proactive role in
accepting his own cause and places the blame for his actions on those of the white community by
noting:
You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement,
I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought
about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content
with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does
not grapple with underlying causes. (King, 51-52)
King outlines the steps taken by his associates in negotiation processes with the city leaders,
only to be stalled and rejected. He reinforces this by stating, “Nonviolent direct action seeks to
create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to
negotiate is forced to confront the issue.” (King, 53). He utilizes Socrates metaphor of a “gadfly”
in Plato’s “Apology” as a means of prompting men to “rise from the depths of prejudice and
racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.” (King, 54). King recounts
Ward 14
throughout history how men have fought to secure such freedoms with the use of both violent
and nonviolent means. He quotes St. Thomas Aquinas’ definition of an unjust law, “A human
law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is
just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” (King, 57), and then redefines it more
concretely. “An unjust law is a code inflicted upon a minority which that minority had no part in
enacting or creating because it did not have the unhampered right to vote.” (King, 57). This is
where Socrates and Martin Luther King, Jr. differ somewhat in their opinions. Socrates would
advocate strict adherence to the law, whereas King writes:
One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness
to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience
tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order
to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality
expressing the highest respect for the law. (King, 58)
Eloquently citing scripture and historical accounts, King’s defiant rebuttal to his accusers
places him at the forefront of his nonviolent movement by noting, “ I am grateful to God that,
through the influence of the Negro church, the dimension of nonviolence entered our struggle.”
(King, 61). In his closing, King laments his accusers for commending the Birmingham police
force for keeping “order” and “preventing violence”. He states:
I wish you had commended the Negro demonstrators for their sublime courage,
their willingness to suffer, and their amazing discipline in the midst of the most
inhuman provocation. One day the south will recognize its real heroes. They will
Ward 15
be the James Merediths, with the noble sense of purpose that enables them to face
jeering and hostile mobs, and with the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the
life of the pioneer. They will be the old oppressed, battered Negro woman in
Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people
decided not to ride segregated buses, and who responded with ungrammatical
profundity to one who inquired about her weariness: “My feets is tired, but my
soul is at rest.” They will be the young high school and college students, the
young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and
nonviolently sitting at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience’s
sake. (King, 67)
Whereas Socrates was given credit as being one of the first great philosophers to begin
seeking the moral character of man, he spent the predominant part of his time in pursuit of
precisely that, merely frustrating his peers and making them feel foolish or ignorant. Martin
Luther King, Jr. changed the social structure of an entire nation. Through his nonviolent efforts
and struggles, he has been noted in the annals of history as being one of the most prominent and
influential characters of our time with respect to human rights. His promotion of the Gandhian
philosophy of nonviolent protest has been a tactic utilized in movements worldwide. Although
some regarded him as a womanizer, he has been able to surpass that stigma and stay true to his
beliefs, thus garnering my respect as the more pro-active of the two.
Ward 16
Works Cited
Dyson, Michael Eric, “I May Not Get There With You: The True Martin Luther King, Jr.”,
Copyright 2002 by Michael Eric Dyson, Published by Simon & Schuster.
King, Martin Luther, “Letter From A Birmingham Jail”, excerpted from “The Eloquent Essay”,
John Loughery, editor, Copyright 2000 by John Loughery, Published by Persea Books.
Smith, Lacy Baldwin, “Fools, Martyrs, Traitors: The Story of Martyrdom in the Western World”,
Copyright 1997 by Lacy baldwin Smith, Published by Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
Stone, Isidor F., “The Trial of Socrates”, Copyright 1989 by I.F. Stone, Published by Anchor
Books (Doubleday).
Stumpf, Samuel Enoch and James Fieser, editors, “Philosophy: History and problems”. 6th ed.
Published by McGraw-Hill.
West, Cornel, “The Religious Foundations of the Thought of Martin Luther King, Jr., and the
Black Freedom Struggle”, Peter J. Albert and Ronald Hoffman, editors, Copyright 1990 by
Random House, Inc.