“Doing evil actions against the evil,
as the many say, is just or not just?”
In Plato’s Crito, which can be found here, involves a conversation between Socrates and Crito. I don’t expect anyone to read the entire thing, so I will summarize it. The occasion for the conversation is that Crito, after Socrates has been imprisoned for impiety and corruption of the youth, visits Socrates in his cell. Crito furious, due to Socrates imprisonment, proposes that he escape from prison. Crito gives a few reason to why he feels the Socrates should escape, among these are reasons of reputation and a teacher’s obligation to their students. However, Socrates argues against these reasons, claiming that they are irrational, only “thoughtless men” worry about such things. Crito feels that Socrates has been unjustly punished and has the right to escape from prison. The two then get into a debate about what justice is and how one can achieve justice. Socrates says “resisting evil by any means other than persuasion is evil.” He makes the claim that by participating in an act of injustice to cure injustice is wrong, and that he has no right to do so. He believes that it is his duty to accept his punishment, and that destroying law is unjust. The point of the Crito is to establish the role of the individual in a state, as well as define justice and how an individual can work with justice. But, is Socrates right? Should one remain just when dealing with injustice, or are there times when people need to break laws to correct injustice, and is that morally right?
I believe that it is ones duty to correct an injustice, but one shouldn’t attempt to break laws in doing so. One should first attempt to use the system of law by which they abide to change law. If that is not possible or not available then one should attempt to publicize their injustice legally. Only when it becomes impossible to follow law to correct an injustice must one slowly break laws to correct the injustice. Of course they should attempt to do it peacefully, without violence.
However, does an individual have the right or ability to interpret justice/injustice and act upon it? Are humans capable of such a thing as individuals, or is it only when majorities or groups rationalize justice/injustice as a whole can the group or majority act in favor or against what has been applied to them?
I think that if a man is to do wrong in order to fight against wrong, then he’s breaking his own principles and isn’t in fact fighting for justice anymore, since he’s using unjust means himself. As for who should act, like Aquinas says, anyone is capable of knowing what the law should be, but I think if one is acting against a social body, then that person should have some sort of a legitimate authority to do so. To remain just when dealing with injustice seems like an irresponsible thing to do, but even in attempting to bring about change, one needs to know the proper manner to do so.
ReplyDelete