Socrates and following the law

[fakename]

Obviously one should not obey an unjust law except for some grave reasons.

But let me play devil’s advocate and say that we should obey all laws because the laws are what trained us, raised us, and basically provided the premise for all of our good in life. Therefore, we should obey all laws out of a sense of gratitude even if that law commands socrates to die.

This is proved from the analogy between the person and the state.

In a person it is wrong to disobey a conscience even if the conscience is formed wrongly -if the conscience establishes a law (though it be unjust) the body must follow the conscience.

Likewise, if the state makes a wrong law, as long as the state seems to be doing good, then one must follow the wrong law. What do you make of the truth/falsity of that argument?

 

[someperson555]

Obviously one should not obey an unjust law except for some grave reasons.

But let me play devil’s advocate and say that we should obey all laws because the laws are what trained us, raised us, and basically provided the premise for all of our good in life. Therefore, we should obey all laws out of a sense of gratitude even if that law commands socrates to die.

This is proved from the analogy between the person and the state.

In a person it is wrong to disobey a conscience even if the conscience is formed wrongly -if the conscience establishes a law (though it be unjust) the body must follow the conscience.

Likewise, if the state makes a wrong law, as long as the state seems to be doing good, then one must follow the wrong law. What do you make of the truth/falsity of that argument?

i think its false, a stupid law must be disobeyed otherwise sdociety would never have progressed past serfdom. blindly following a person just because he gave himself the title of “king” is not very smart IMO.

 

[stevekehl]

Obviously one should not obey an unjust law except for some grave reasons.

But let me play devil’s advocate and say that we should obey all laws because the laws are what trained us, raised us, and basically provided the premise for all of our good in life. Therefore, we should obey all laws out of a sense of gratitude even if that law commands socrates to die.

This is proved from the analogy between the person and the state.

In a person it is wrong to disobey a conscience even if the conscience is formed wrongly -if the conscience establishes a law (though it be unjust) the body must follow the conscience.

Likewise, if the state makes a wrong law, as long as the state seems to be doing good, then one must follow the wrong law. What do you make of the truth/falsity of that argument?

I’m not sure I understand what you are asking, I think it is this; is it a sin to follow a wrong law if you don’t know any better?
First, God is the one who provides the good in our lives. Secondly, God has given us Scripture to mold our conscience. A person ignorant of Scripture may be molded by the morals of their society, but the conscience exposed to God’s command can and does change. Also, in Romans Paul wrote that God has written the law on the hearts of men and men are without excuse to believe in God (2:15, 1:20). It can be seen that no society values someone who steals, murders their neighbors, lies, cheats, etc… They may do that to the next village, tribe, or city, but not to each other. And we can see that the basic laws of societies hold the same basic values. For those laws that are wrong (such as the Spartans leaving cripples babies to die in the wilderness) follow Jesus advice give Cesear what is owed to Ceasear, but nothing more.

 

[tonyrey]

Obviously one should not obey an unjust law except for some grave reasons.

Such as?

But let me play devil’s advocate and say that we should obey all laws because the laws are what trained us, raised us, and basically provided the premise for all of our good in life. Therefore, we should obey all laws out of a sense of gratitude even if that law commands socrates to die.
This is proved from the analogy between the person and the state.

It doesn’t follow that we should obey all laws simply because most laws have been beneficial.

In a person it is wrong to disobey a conscience even if the conscience is formed wrongly -if the conscience establishes a law (though it be unjust) the body must follow the conscience.

The obligation to obey our conscience doesn’t imply that we are infallible!

Likewise, if the state makes a wrong law, as long as the state seems to be doing good, then one must follow the wrong law. What do you make of the truth/falsity of that argument?

It is true if we believe the State **is **doing good.

 

[fakename]

I’m not sure I understand what you are asking, I think it is this; is it a sin to follow a wrong law if you don’t know any better?
First, God is the one who provides the good in our lives. Secondly, God has given us Scripture to mold our conscience. A person ignorant of Scripture may be molded by the morals of their society, but the conscience exposed to God’s command can and does change. Also, in Romans Paul wrote that God has written the law on the hearts of men and men are without excuse to believe in God (2:15, 1:20). It can be seen that no society values someone who steals, murders their neighbors, lies, cheats, etc… They may do that to the next village, tribe, or city, but not to each other. And we can see that the basic laws of societies hold the same basic values. For those laws that are wrong (such as the Spartans leaving cripples babies to die in the wilderness) follow Jesus advice give Cesear what is owed to Ceasear, but nothing more.

I’m saying that if one thinks that there is a good analogy between the individual man and the state then we can say that all gov. laws should be followed. This is because in the individual the gov. part (the conscience) should be followed whenever it is wrong. Likewise the state should be followed whenever it is wrong too.

This gets us into a lot of philosophical territory over judgment however. In a society, is it possible for members of a lower class or caste to have the power to judge or only the rulers (the political class)? I think another analogy can help us to conclude that judgment can be entrusted persons other than officials, but I don’t know how to phrase it yet.

 

[fakename]

Such as?

It doesn’t follow that we should obey all laws simply because most laws have been beneficial.

The obligation to obey our conscience doesn’t imply that we are infallible!

It is true if we believe the State **is **doing good.

(1) don’t go against a wrong law if opposition results in greater disorder than the anarchy imposed by the bad law (which isn’t really a law itself).

(2) I’m not saying that we are infallible if we have a false conscience -I’m saying we should persist in our obvious fallibility since the conscience should not be transgressed.

What do you mean by your last response?

 

[tonyrey]

(1) don’t go against a wrong law if opposition results in greater disorder than the anarchy imposed by the bad law (which isn’t really a law itself).

I agree.

(2) I’m not saying that we are infallible if we have a false conscience -I’m saying we should persist in our obvious fallibility since the conscience should not be transgressed.
I agree.

What do you mean by your last response?

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

A perfect (extreme) example of this is the Rwandan genocide that occured in the 90’s between the Hutus and Tutsis. I believe it was the Hutus that through organization/government implemented (basicly) law that demanded its people to rage genocidal tactics against the Tutsis in a power struggle that resulted in mass killings.

When a government makes law or policy or decision of this sort are you obliged to follow it because its law? I think not. This is an extreme example but this can also be applied to lesser examples such as; the Catholic-insurance-contraceptive debate, for instance.

 

[fakename]

I suppose that fixing an unjust law is not like the body usurping the judgment of the mind but rather, the body is simply reminding the mind what it’s true law was.

This is not a betrayal of conscience as much as it is a sense-memory reawakening conscience’s spirit.

Do you think that this is a good analogy?

 

[thewanderer]

Obviously one should not obey an unjust law except for some grave reasons.

But let me play devil’s advocate and say that we should obey all laws because the laws are what trained us, raised us, and basically provided the premise for all of our good in life. Therefore, we should obey all laws out of a sense of gratitude even if that law commands socrates to die.

This is proved from the analogy between the person and the state.

In a person it is wrong to disobey a conscience even if the conscience is formed wrongly -if the conscience establishes a law (though it be unjust) the body must follow the conscience.

Likewise, if the state makes a wrong law, as long as the state seems to be doing good, then one must follow the wrong law. What do you make of the truth/falsity of that argument?

I think part of the problem comes from taking the analogy between the person and the state too strictly. Perhaps your argument would hold true if the only laws an individual is under were those of the state, the problem is that your analogy ignores the fact that that individuals must follow the natural law. The idea of a ‘bad law’ comes from the fact that it is a state(or other) law which contradicts natural law. In this case it is impossible to have the much more clear cut scenario of the man with the badly formed conscience, as for him there is no contradiction in laws. However, the individual in a state which issues a bad law, recognizes that law as bad only because he recognizes the authority of the natural law he is under because of his conscience. The question then boils down to which of the two laws takes precedent, that of the state, or that of your very existence. I think this one shouldn’t be too hard to work out.