Ward 1

Anthony Ward

Professor Drake

HIS 2321- Western Civilization to 1715

21 June 2008

Socrates and Martin Luther King, Jr.-A Comparison of Ethics

Ward 2

When comparing two notable icons of their times such as Socrates and Martin Luther King,

Jr., one should ensure to keep an open perspective with respect to sociologic viewpoints and how

the two lived their lives. If looking at it in the literal sense, we could easily conclude that

Socrates lived and practiced a far greater moral and ethical code of life when compared to that of

Martin Luther King, Jr. In weighing the contributions each made to their respective societies

however, the comparison appears more in favor of Martin Luther King, Jr. While researching

this particular issue, I quickly became aware of a duality within my intended paper; that being

not only a comparison of ethics and morality, but also an issue on the validity of civil

disobedience and the impact thereof.

According to co-authors Samuel Stumpf and James Fieser in their book entitled

“Philosophy:History and Problems”, they relate that:

Socrates wrote nothing. Most of what we know about him has been preserved by

three of his famous younger contemporaries, Aristophenes, Xenophon, and most

importantly, Plato. […] From Xenophon comes the portrait of a loyal soldier who

has a passion for discussing the requirements of morality and who inevitably

attracted the younger people to seek out his advice. Plato confirms this general

portrait and in addition pictures Socrates as a man with a deep sense of mission

and absolute moral purity. (Stumpf 35)

In the spring of 399 B.C., when Socrates was seventy years old, he was accused of impiety

and of corrupting the youth of Athens. Socrates was tried before a court of five hundred and one.

After Socrates was found guilty, the penalty still remained to be determined. The convicted was

to propose a counter penalty and “The Apology” is substantially the speech that Socrates made

Ward 3

before the court. According to Lacy Baldwin Smith in her book titled “Fools, Martyrs, Traitors:

The Story of Martyrdom in the Western World” some historians believe that Socrates was never

meant to stand trial, noting that the accusations made against him were a legal maneuver by

political contemporaries to force him into exile and thereby rid Athens of one of its most

unpopular citizens at the time. She writes:

Unfortunately Socrates refused to cooperate, and he insisted upon a trial, which,

with Plato’s skill as dramatic narrator, he transformed from a travesty of party

politics and personal malice into a public forum to demonstrate that only fools

and bigots could possibly believe that he was guilty of impiety or corrupting the

moral and spiritual fiber of the city. On the contrary, he alone possessed the

double-edged truth: the only knowledge worth knowing is the realization that

wisdom belongs to the gods alone, and mankind is far better off trying to practice

virtue based on humility and endeavoring to concern itself with the destiny of the

soul than with silly earthly material affairs. (Smith 31-32)

Plato’s “Apology” shows Socrates speaking to the Athenian court, defending himself against

charges of introducing new religious beliefs and misleading the younger generation. Although

the “Apology” reads as essentially a monologue, Plato casts Socrates’ speech as an implied

dialogue with his accusers, the assembly, and the larger community of the city. And because the

charges call into question Socrates’ lifelong public career as a philosopher, the “Apology” is

Plato’s most explicit defense of philosophical inquiry as essential to the well being of society.

Ward 4

In a Platonic dialogue, no single character represents the author’s opinions. Instead, we

encounter a series of conversations and speeches in which the characters affirm or deny one

another’s statements while engaging in cross-examination. Every statement is subjected to

ongoing inquiry; at its conclusion, a dialogue leaves the impression that more avenues for

investigation have been opened than existed at the beginning. The character of Socrates, as

written by Plato, is portrayed as the sharpest questioner and often seems to have the upper hand.

However, even when he presents fully formed theories, they are put forward only as hypotheses

to be examined, not as doctrine. In fact, as previously noted, Socrates continuously states that his

only wisdom is in knowing what he does not know and he appears to willingly join with others in

the pursuit of truth.

I.F. Stone, in his book titled “The Trial of Socrates”, explores this statement even further and

acknowledges that Socrates assisted in his own demise by insulting his accusers and the court.

He notes:

But Socrates, in dealing with the question “what is knowledge?” went off in an

opposite direction. Real knowledge, Socrates taught, could be obtained only

through absolute definition. If one could not define a thing absolutely, then one

really didn’t know what it was. Then Socrates demonstrated that such knowledge

was unobtainable, even by him. Modestly, he claimed that, in this sense, all he

knew was that he didn’t know. Virtue was knowledge, but real knowledge was

inaccessible. Even this much of the truth could be grasped only, if at all, by a few.

So behind his immeasurable modesty there lurked an equally immeasurable

conceit. (Stone, 39-40)

Ward 5

Socrates’ conceit is brash, but poignant in his address to the court regarding his reputation as

being wise. Stone further writes:

In Plato’s “Apology”, Socrates says the oracle was asked an enigmatic question

and gave an enigmatic answer, or at least Socrates chose to treat it as such. The

question was whether “there were anyone wiser than I.” The answer was “that

there was no one wiser.” Plato’s version differs in grace and whimsicality, or

irony, but not in substance from Xenophon’s. In Plato, Socrates puts the story

diffidently, as if to disarm the court. He asks the jurors not to “make a tumult”-

using the same Greek verb, thorubeo, as does the Xenophonic account- “if I seem

to you to be boasting” (which of course he was). Socrates is apologetic that such a

question was even asked the oracleand blames this on Chaerephon, the disciple

who dared broach it […] So blame for the boastfulness is shifted to Chaerephon.

[…] Why should a reputation for wisdom get a man into trouble in a city like

Athens, a city to which philosophers flocked from all over Greece and were not

welcomed but richly rewarded as teachers and popular lecturers? […] The answer

seems to be that Socrates used his special kind of “wisdom”- his sophia or skill as

a logician and philosopher- for a special political purpose: to make all the leading

men of the city appear to be ignorant fools. (Stone, 79-81)

In Platonic dialogue, Socrates admits this himself and defends the accusation of impiety

against him by stating:

Ward 6

This inquisition has led to my having many enemies of the worst and most

dangerous kind, and has given occasion also to many calumnies. And I am called

wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess the wisdom which I

find wanting in others: but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise;

and by his answer he intends to show that the wisdom of men is worth little or

nothing; he is not speaking of Socrates, he is only using my name by way of

illustration, as if he said, He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that

his wisdom is in truth worth nothing. And so I go about the world, obedient to the

God, and search and make inquiry into the wisdom of any one, whether citizen or

stranger, who appears to be wise; and if he is not wise, then in vindication of the

oracle I show him that he is not wise; and my occupation quite absorbs me, and I

have no time to give either to any public matter of interest or to any concern of

my own, but I am in utter poverty by reason of my devotion to the God. (Stumpf,

15)

Socrates spars with his accusers in this manner throughout Plato’s “Apology”, making a

mockery of all and demonstrating his unwillingness to compromise his ethics for the good of the

court or their perceived accusations. He placed a valued emphasis on Athenian law, regardless of

his own convictions and saw it as his duty to uphold such. Stone submits that:

Socrates was sensitive to the charge that he had always stood apart from the

political life of the city. At his trial- according to Plato’s “Apology”- he cited two

instances of participation in politics, once against the democracy, once against the

dictatorship of the Thirty. These were, by his own account, the only occasions on

Ward 7

which he took an active part in the affairs of his city. In both cases participation

was forced upon him under circumstances not of his own free choice. But when

confronted by the duty, he acted justly and with courage.

The first occasion, in 406 B.C. came during the trial of the generals who had

commanded the Athenian fleet at the battle of Arginusae. They were accused of

failing to pick up survivors and the bodies of the dead after the battle. The

generals claimed that rescue was made impossible by stormy seas. Socrates was a

member of the prytaneis, the board of fifty that presided at the trial. These were

chosen by lot. The issue which put Socrates’ mettle to the test was whether the

generals had the right to be tried separately.

To try them together was manifestly unfair. Each individual commander had a

right to be judged on the basis of what he himself actually had done under the

specific circumstances in the area of his responsibility. The Athenian boule, or

council, in preparing the case for trial by the assembly, had given into public

indignation against the generals and decided that they were to be tried together.

But when the trial opened before the assembly, a resolute dissenter challenged the

mass trial as invalid under established Athenian law and procedure.[…] Socrates

alone held out to the last against this illegal and unjust procedure.

The second occasion on which Socrates was compelled to confront his duty as a

citizen involved a wealthy metic, or resident alien, Leon of Salamis, under the

rule of the Thirty. So narrow was the public support for the dictatorship that it

Ward 8

could hope to survive only through the intimidating presence in Athens of a

Spartan garrison. To pay the expenses of the garrison, it proceeded to “liquidate”

rich resident noncitizen traders, and then expropriate their estates to pay the

Spartan occupiers.

“After the oligarchy was established,” Socrates tells his judges in Plato’s

“Apology”, “the Thirty sent for me with four others to come to the rotunda and

ordered us to bring Leon the Salaminian…to be put to death.” The thirty did not

need citizens’ posse for the arrest. The thirty had bullyboy squads with whips and

daggers to terrorize the citizenry. These could have easily arrested Leon. Why did

they want Socrates to take part? “They gave many such orders to others also,”

Socrates explains, “because they wished to implicate as many in their crimes as

they could.” […] Socrates resisted, but minimally, not so much as a political but

as a private act. Instead of protesting the order, he simply left the rotunda and

quietly went home, and took no part in the arrest. This, when stripped of his

boastfulness, was the substance of his own account. “Then I, however, showed

again, by action,” Socrates says, “not in word only, that I do not care a whit for

death if that be not to do anything unjust or unholy. For that government, with all

its power, did not frighten me into doing anything unjust, but when we came out

of the rotunda, the other four went…and arrested Leon, but I simply went home”

(Stone, 111-113)

Ward 9

In both cases, whether challenging or passive, Socrates made a courageous attempt to

preserve and reaffirm his commitment and respect for the laws as they were applied. On

defending his course in life, Socrates states in the “Apology”:

Someone will say: And are you not ashamed, Socrates, of a course of life which is

likely to bring you an untimely end? To him I may fairly answer: There you are

mistaken: a man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of

living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing

right or wrong- acting the part of a good man or of a bad.[…] If now, when, as I

conceive and imagine, God orders me to fulfill the philosopher’s mission of

searching into myself and other men, I were to desert my post through fear of

death, or any other fear; that would indeed be strange, and I might justly be

arraigned in court for denying the existence of the gods, if I disobeyed the oracle

because I was afraid of death, fancying that I was wise when I was not wise. For

the fear of death is indeed the pretence of wisdom, and not real wisdom, being a

pretence of knowing the unknown; and no one knows whether death, which men

in their fear apprehend to be the greatest evil, may not be the greatest good. Is not

this ignorance of a disgraceful sort, the ignorance which is the conceit that a man

knows what he does not know? And in this respect only I believe myself to differ

from men in general, and may perhaps claim to be wiser than they are:-that

whereas I know but little of the world below, I do not suppose that I know: but I

do know that injustice and disobedience to a better, whether God or man, is evil

Ward 10

and dishonorable, and I will never fear or avoid a possible good rather than a

certain evil. (Stumpf, 20)

His ultimate surrender to Athenian law and his guilty verdict is echoed in his statement:

I tell you that to do as you say would be a disobedience to the God,[…] and if I

say again that daily to discourse about virtue, and of those other things about

which you hear me examining myself and others, is the greatest good of man, and

that the unexamined life is not worth living you are still less likely to believe me.

[…] Wherefore, O judges, be of good cheer about death, and know of a certainty,

that no evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death. (Stumpf, 26-

29)

With history having the propensity to repeat itself, we move to a more modern time frame.

Martin Luther King, Jr. has long been portrayed as a man with vision and passionate

commitment for the civil rights movement in America. Michael Eric Dyson, in his novel titled, “I

May Not Get There With You: The True Martin Luther King, Jr.”, addresses King’s background

by writing:

He drank from the roots of black sacred rhetoric within his own genealogical tree-

he was the son, grandson, and great-grandson of Baptist preachers- and from

legendary figures who branched into his youthful world, including William

Holmes Borders, Sandy Ray, and Gardner Taylor, who is widely viewed as

King’s preaching idol and the “poet laureate of the American pulpit.” Before King

Ward 11

was baptized in the waters of liberal white theological education, he drew deep

from the well of wisdom contained in the words of his church elders. King also

learned the art of masking hard truth in humor. He learned how to dress cultural

observation in colorful cadences of tuneful speech[…] King learned to weave

penetrating and eloquent liberation stories by threading into his sermons extensive

allusion to the Bible and keen political and social analysis. (Dyson, 179)

Cornel West further corroborates this in his essay “The Religious Foundations of the

Thought of Martin Luther King, Jr.” by noting that King was driven by four principal intellectual

and existential sources. He quotes them as being:

The prophetic black church tradition that initially and fundamentally shaped his

world view. The second was a prophetic liberal Christianity that he encountered

in his higher education and scholarly training. The third was a prophetic Gandhian

method of nonviolent social change that he first heard about in a sermon by

Mordecai Johnson, then President of Howard University, and that he utilized in

his intense intellectual struggle with the powerful critiques of Christianity and the

Christian love ethic put forward by Carl Marx and Frederich Nietzche. The last

source was that of prophetic American civil religion, which fuses secular and

sacred history and combines Christian themes of deliverance and salvation with

political ideals of democracy, freedom, and equality. (West, 116)

King utilized his charisma and influences in sermons and political rhetoric to produce

emotional responses in his audiences that resound even today. Being a prominent leader in the

Ward 12

Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), he was invited to participate in the fight for

civil rights in Birmingham, Alabama, where an SCLC meeting was to be held. King was arrested

as a result of a program of sit-ins at luncheon counters and wrote his now famous “Letter From A

Birmingham Jail” as a response to a group of clergymen who had publicly criticized his position.

In 1963 many people to whom King addressed this letter firmly believed that peace and order

might be threatened by granting African Americans the true independence that King insisted

were their rights and guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States. Eventually the

causes that King promoted were victorious. His efforts helped to change attitudes in the South

and spur legislation that has been beneficial to all Americans. His views with regard to

nonviolence spread throughout the whole world, and by the early 1960’s he had become famous

as a man who stood for human rights and human dignity virtually everywhere. Martin Luther

King, Jr. was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 for these efforts. Although King himself

was nonviolent, his program left both him and his followers open to the threat of violence. The

sit-ins and voter registration programs spurred countless bombings, threats, and murders by

members of the white community. King’s life was often threatened, his home bombed, and his

followers harassed. He was assassinated at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee, on April

4, 1968. But before he died he saw- largely through his own efforts, influence, and example- the

face of America change.

In King’s letter, he responds systematically to his accusers his reasons for coming to

Birmingham and the struggles that face not only him, but also our nation itself at the time. He

argues:

Ward 13

I think I should indicate why I am here in Birmingham, since you have been

influenced by the view which argues against “outsiders coming in”. I have the

honor as serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an

organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta,

Georgia. […] Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be

on call to engage in a nonviolent direction program if such were deemed

necessary. […] More basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here.

(King, 50-51)

Like Socrates before him, he criticizes his accusers for not taking a more proactive role in

accepting his own cause and places the blame for his actions on those of the white community by

noting:

You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement,

I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought

about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content

with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does

not grapple with underlying causes. (King, 51-52)

King outlines the steps taken by his associates in negotiation processes with the city leaders,

only to be stalled and rejected. He reinforces this by stating, “Nonviolent direct action seeks to

create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to

negotiate is forced to confront the issue.” (King, 53). He utilizes Socrates metaphor of a “gadfly”

in Plato’s “Apology” as a means of prompting men to “rise from the depths of prejudice and

racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.” (King, 54). King recounts

Ward 14

throughout history how men have fought to secure such freedoms with the use of both violent

and nonviolent means. He quotes St. Thomas Aquinas’ definition of an unjust law, “A human

law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is

just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” (King, 57), and then redefines it more

concretely. “An unjust law is a code inflicted upon a minority which that minority had no part in

enacting or creating because it did not have the unhampered right to vote.” (King, 57). This is

where Socrates and Martin Luther King, Jr. differ somewhat in their opinions. Socrates would

advocate strict adherence to the law, whereas King writes:

One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness

to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience

tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order

to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality

expressing the highest respect for the law. (King, 58)

Eloquently citing scripture and historical accounts, King’s defiant rebuttal to his accusers

places him at the forefront of his nonviolent movement by noting, “ I am grateful to God that,

through the influence of the Negro church, the dimension of nonviolence entered our struggle.”

(King, 61). In his closing, King laments his accusers for commending the Birmingham police

force for keeping “order” and “preventing violence”. He states:

I wish you had commended the Negro demonstrators for their sublime courage,

their willingness to suffer, and their amazing discipline in the midst of the most

inhuman provocation. One day the south will recognize its real heroes. They will

Ward 15

be the James Merediths, with the noble sense of purpose that enables them to face

jeering and hostile mobs, and with the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the

life of the pioneer. They will be the old oppressed, battered Negro woman in

Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people

decided not to ride segregated buses, and who responded with ungrammatical

profundity to one who inquired about her weariness: “My feets is tired, but my

soul is at rest.” They will be the young high school and college students, the

young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and

nonviolently sitting at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience’s

sake. (King, 67)

Whereas Socrates was given credit as being one of the first great philosophers to begin

seeking the moral character of man, he spent the predominant part of his time in pursuit of

precisely that, merely frustrating his peers and making them feel foolish or ignorant. Martin

Luther King, Jr. changed the social structure of an entire nation. Through his nonviolent efforts

and struggles, he has been noted in the annals of history as being one of the most prominent and

influential characters of our time with respect to human rights. His promotion of the Gandhian

philosophy of nonviolent protest has been a tactic utilized in movements worldwide. Although

some regarded him as a womanizer, he has been able to surpass that stigma and stay true to his

beliefs, thus garnering my respect as the more pro-active of the two.

Ward 16

Works Cited

Dyson, Michael Eric, “I May Not Get There With You: The True Martin Luther King, Jr.”,

Copyright 2002 by Michael Eric Dyson, Published by Simon & Schuster.

King, Martin Luther, “Letter From A Birmingham Jail”, excerpted from “The Eloquent Essay”,

John Loughery, editor, Copyright 2000 by John Loughery, Published by Persea Books.

Smith, Lacy Baldwin, “Fools, Martyrs, Traitors: The Story of Martyrdom in the Western World”,

Copyright 1997 by Lacy baldwin Smith, Published by Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

Stone, Isidor F., “The Trial of Socrates”, Copyright 1989 by I.F. Stone, Published by Anchor

Books (Doubleday).

Stumpf, Samuel Enoch and James Fieser, editors, “Philosophy: History and problems”. 6th ed.

Published by McGraw-Hill.

West, Cornel, “The Religious Foundations of the Thought of Martin Luther King, Jr., and the

Black Freedom Struggle”, Peter J. Albert and Ronald Hoffman, editors, Copyright 1990 by

Random House, Inc.