Obligation to Obey the Law: A Study of the Death of Socrates

Do we have an obligation to obey any law, no matter how unjust or evil, provided only that it is in fact a valid rule of the legal system in which we happen to be physically located? Reassessment of the relation between law and ethics justifies a new look at the classic statement of legal obligation: the death of Socrates found in the dialogues of Plato. Three possible bases for an ethical obligation to obey the law are examined. Tags: Socrates, estoppel, law and ethics, ethical obligation to obey law [pg1079]**Do we have an obligation to obey any law, no matter how unjust or evil, provided only that it is in fact a valid rule of the legal system in which we happen to be physically located? The attention given to this problem in recent years as a result of controversies over civil disobedience and post-Watergate reassessment of the relation between law and ethics justifies a new look at the classic statement of legal obligation: the death of Socrates found in the dialogues of Plato. [FN1] Although often cited, Plato's account has rarely been the subject of critical scrutiny. [FN2] Yet the death of Socrates presents the moral dilemma of civil disobedience in the starkest possible situation and suggests a helpful structure for consideration of the ethical bases of one's obedience to the law. The dialogues suggest three possible bases for an ethical obligation to obey the law. First, a citizen may have assented to the law; that is, we may find that an express or implied agreement to obey exists. Second, short of an implied agreement, his own actions may estop him to disobey—"estoppel" is used here in an ethical sense; if the term were used in a legal sense the argument would of course be tautological. Third, absent any assent or action by the citizen himself, he may simply have been the recipient of benefits conferred by other citizens and therefore arguably should have an obligation to obey the laws enacted by those citizens. [FN3] Logically, these three possibilities seem to exhaust [pg1080] the range of sources of obligation. Assuming that they are exhaustive, I will examine each in the latter part of this essay. At the outset, however, it is necessary briefly to describe Socrates' trial in the context of the Athenian legal system, and then, from the viewpoint both of the legal system and of Socrates' own motivations, to shade in the general ethical considerations surrounding Socrates' decision not to escape from prison. I. THE LEGAL CONTEXT Socrates was accused of the capital crime of corrupting the young with his teachings, [FN4] tried before a judge and jury panel of 500 or 501 members, [FN5] and sentenced to death. The sentence was later effected when he was given poison to drink. At no point during the proceedings did Socrates deny that corrupting the young was a criminal act punishable by death. While that particular crime probably derived from the various codes the Athenians considered "law" (primarily the codes of Draco, Solon, and Cleisthenes), the crime was in a sense a common law offense, [FN6] inasmuch as no precedents were offered which even suggested that engaging in philosophical debate could be considered corruption of the young. Since trials and decisions were not formally reported in Socrates' time, the words "precedent" and "common law" should