|
i don't think the text of Crito adequatly deals with the issue of indivual moral agency. Socrates assumes that his example will be binding, and that the obsevers will not perform a moral analysis, but simply mimesis.
if the world was only copy cats, then he has a point. but if we expect others to be moral agents, then it is reasonable to stand in opposition to a bad law, while legitimating the idea of the rule of law itself.
clearly there are examples of this happening. indian resistance to the british was conducted with civil disobedience....they are now the world's largest democracy, and retain a legal system based on the common law. Hobbes and Socrates, and the great defenders of the law have a point. There are things worse than annoying laws. But there are such things as profoundly unjust laws, ones requiring that a moral human being stand in opposition to them lest they become broken down by complicity.
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.
-John 3:16
|