Ignoring Society’s Laws: A Critical Analysis of Plato and Sophocles
The philosophical argument that “citizens ought to be free to ignore society’s laws
whenever their conscience dictates” has always appealed to non-conformists, but if such
conduct became widely accepted, society would degenerate into anarchy. This
contentious issue has been debated by philosophers and political theorists for more than
two-thousand years, and a general consensus has emerged that this argument is only valid
in terms of civil disobedience, where those who ignore or disobey certain laws are willing
to submit themselves to arrest and punishment in order to emphasize the injustice of those
laws.
In ancient Greece, Plato and Sophocles addressed this issue in works such as
Crito and Antigone. For example, Sophocles (2005) argued in Antigone that people have
the moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws, but also have the societal responsibility to
accept the consequences. This argument is presented thematically in the play, for
Antigone disobeys the orders of the king of Thebes, who forbids the burial of her brother
Polyneices because King Creon considers him a traitor. Antigone defies him and buries
Polyneices anyway, and Creon condemns her to death. Eventually, Creon is persuaded
that he has acted unjustly, but his decision to free Antigone comes too late, for he
discovers that she has killed herself (Sophocles 2005).
Antigone’s decision to defy the king and bury Polyneices is symbolic, for
Sophocles is expressing the importance and moral validity of civil disobedience in every
society. Antigone was torn between loyalty and respect for her brother and loyalty and
respect for authority. Her alternatives were limited, and she ultimately resolved to show
loyalty and respect to her brother instead of to the king, but considered it necessary to
accept punishment, which she carried out herself through suicide (Sophocles 2005).
In Crito, Plato (2000) correctly identifies the fundamental reasons why ignoring
laws or defying authority is an issue, for he observes that flawed political systems
inevitably produce unjust laws, which motivates some to ignore or defy those laws. For
example, when Socrates is asked in Plato’s (2000) Crito whether the rule of the majority
in political matters should be agreed to, since the majority seems to be consistently
mistaken on other important matters, he replies that the multitude in such circumstances,
“would be as ready to restore people to life, if they were able, as they are to put them to
death—and with as little reason.”
This example supports Plato’s and Socrates’ argument that the political majority
often acts irrationally, takes action for the wrong moral reasons, and causes great harm to
themselves and society because they fail to understand the meaning of life, what
constitutes a good life, and what it means to be a human being. In this context, they are
arguing that the blind leading the blind is not a system in which one should place much
confidence, and warns that little good can come from trusting majority-rule political
systems to formulate just laws.
Based upon his assessment of Socrates’ position, Plato (2000) argues in Crito that
neither individual rulers nor majorities in a democratic system have the moral or political
right to perpetrate injustice or expand their power through unjust laws. He also
vigorously objects to the theory and practice of majority rule in a democracy on the
grounds that majority rule lawmaking implies that, “the opinions of some men are to be
regarded, and of other men not to be regarded” (Plato 2000).
In evaluating the arguments of these ancient Greek thinkers, I agree with them
that pursuing justice and debating moral issues is not simply a matter of mere opinion,
but of correct opinion. The moral authority in each case is the actual truth of the matter,
and cannot simply be concocted by a variety of impassioned opinions based on selfinterest or pretense to justice. Antigone believed she had the moral authority to defy the
king and did so (Sophocles 2005). Her position was morally correct and the king’s
position was morally incorrect, and he ultimately realized that.
Various forms of civil disobedience affirm that rigid self-interest is never
justified, while acting morally is justified when one accepts the penalties involved, as
Antigone did, and acts on behalf of the victims of injustice while submitting to
established authority in the hope that their action will expose that injustice and lead to its
condemnation by society.
Ignoring or breaking the law for personal gain is immoral, for it harms others, but
breaking unjust laws in the name of justice benefits others and only harms the people
involved in the civil disobedience. They are risking, and if necessary, accepting arrest
and imprisonment in order to achieve reforms that will not only bring justice to the
direct victims of injustice, but will improve society as a whole.
Critics may object that the arguments of Plato and Sophocles are outdated and
have little relevance in the modern world, but their arguments are still relevant, for
human nature has not changed much in thousands of years, and these issues related to
unjust lawmaking first identified by Plato and Sophocles continue to directly affect the
lives of hundreds of millions of people. Subsequently, their arguments about the merits
or flaws of majority rule lawmaking and unjust authority are still applicable, and continue
to be well worth examining more than two millennia after their deaths, for many of their
arguments have validity and merit.
In conclusion, ever since ancient times, the philosophical argument that “citizens
ought to be free to ignore society’s laws whenever their conscience dictates” has
appealed to non-conformists, but if such conduct became widely accepted in society,
anarchy would prevail. This controversial issue has been debated ever since ancient
times, and a general consensus has emerged that ignoring or disobeying laws is only valid
through civil disobedience, which requires the willingness to submit to arrest and
imprisonment in order to expose the injustice of disputed laws.
Antigone engaged in an ancient form of civil disobedience, for she was guided by
morality but submitted herself to authority because she understood the broader societal
issues involved and was willing to accept punishment. Her suicide was tragic, but it
demonstrated that defying authority imposes a price and that price must be paid for the
greater long-term good of society. The example she set has been emulated in various
ways by others throughout history who have understood the necessity of civil
disobedience, but also the necessity of accepting punishment for their acts of civil
disobedience.
References
Plato. 2000. The Crito. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/crito.html (accessed July 16, 2006).
Sophocles. 2005. Antigone. http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/sophocles/antigone.htm
(accessed July 15, 2006).