No Reason, No Justice (Apology)

No Reason, No Justice (Apology) June 28, 2016

Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court_optJustice is hard to find in these perilous times. if you are a Christian in the parts of Syria no longer controlled by the government, martyrdom and God’s justice on the other side of the sword are your only hope. If you live in parts of the world, the rich can buy justice while the poor have not hope of a voice in court. If you are an unborn human, the United States Supreme Court will not protect you.

How should we react to the sophistical inhumanity of the Court?

The United States of America is one of the best places in the world to live if you want justice, but we are by no means perfect. If you are poor or a minority, justice can seem far away. Being the citizen of a country that is the best of a bad lot is not that comforting if big business, a big billionaire, and big government unite to seize your house for a project they think is important . . . like a casino.

The objective, perfect justice, is important, but so is the realization that no human institution will ever reach that goal. While complaining about defects in the system, we must be careful not to burn down the best house in the neighborhood, because we see some roaches. We must guard our liberty, but in a manner that strengthens and does not weaken the social order.

Our ancestor in democratic government, the even more imperfect Athens, shows us a danger. In that great city, demagogic people seized control of the democracy, abused power, and drove the thoughtful folk to despair and a preference for tyranny. At that point, everybody was wrong, nobody was right, and the imperfect became horrific. The culture that produced great art, philosophy, and the seeds of science withered away. Athens lost her independence, never to recover the glories of her best days.

The perfect became the enemy of the good. When it comes to justice, one need only look at Socrates to see the problems and a solution. Socrates was the conscience of the democracy. He refused to let blow-hard people in academics, business, or politics pretend to knowledge they did not have. He would not let them abuse students, costumers, or citizens without an examination of their actions. Not surprisingly, the sophists in academics, the crooks in business, and the grifters in politics hated Socrates. They used the courts to put him on trial and finally killed him using the law as their weapon.

In Plato’s Apology, Socrates gives his defense.  Socrates apology, like the Christian discipline apologetics, is not saying “sorry,” but a defense. His case was ineffective for saving his own life,  just like the apologetics of men like Justin Martyr, but was (like everything Socrates does in Plato’s works) educational to those of us who follow the father of philosophy. His defense came after the prosecution made their spurious charges. We don’t get to read the charges,  Apology begins with the defense.

I don’t know what effect my accusers have had upon you, gentlemen, but for my own part I was almost carried away by them- their arguments were so convincing. 

The stress is on the group . . y’all, the men of Athens, the accusers and Socrates almost agree with them. The group has a complaint with Socrates. He has exposed the ugliness of democracy without giving a positive alternative.

We can only guess the arguments for Socrates response, but the content of the arguments is less important than that they were convincing. Philosopher-types are too quick to hasten past this as “irony.” Why think that Socrates, who examined everything, was not taking this moment to examine his own life? He almost surely believed there was something to be said for the critics, though he believed they were wrong. His work was not harmful to the city, but beneficial. Teaching young people to think was good for Athens, though some students, like Alcibiades, had already been ruined by the educational system by the time they met Socrates.

A bad person with a good teacher can be bad for the city. Why? Alcibiades was the most talented young man of his generation and Athens needed his genius, but they ruined him. He had been taught selfishness and moral decadence by the approved teachers of the city and was no longer fit to lead. When he finally met a good man, a moral teacher, it was too late for Alcibiades. Learning to argue well, simply made him a pest. Socrates gave him a new skill set to irritate and fail the city.

Socrates did not corrupt the youth, but he gave corrupt youth new ways to get the corruption they craved. How bad is a city when the good men do harm by being good?

All of this would drive many of Socrates’ better students not only to reject the form that democracy had taken (demagogic and corrupt), but also the voice of the people. Socrates would dialog with his critics, but some of his followers were merely dismissive. Experts and elite opinion do have an earned, privileged position, but this cannot cause them to stop listening. Socrates listened and was willing to attack errors in the elite and in the democracy.

After all, it was the elite, educated, experts that manipulated the people to condemn Socrates. The real enemy of philosophy was the demagogue and the sophist, not so much the average Athenian. Given what they were being told, Socrates understood, but did not agree with their condemnation of his work. The enemy of the open society in Athens wasn’t the “people” or Socrates, but the intellectual elite who wanted Socrates dead for challenging their corruption.

America faces a similar problem. Educational innovation faces a guild of scholars who care more about credentialing than quality. Politicians tell us what we want to hear and then do what they wish. When we are frustrated, they give us enemies to hate. Bad business leaders buy off critics if they can and bury them if they cannot. Democracy did not kill Socrates until it was perverted by a corrupt group of leaders who manipulated the opinions of the crowd for their own good.

The bad shepherds turned the sheep to wolves and then good shepherds condemned the wolves.

Socrates is the model of how to respond. He stayed in the city and honored the decision of the people. He accepted their judgment, but went on disagreeing. He honored the people by giving them the truth, his best arguments, and then abiding by the results. Socrates models the elite opinion maker who will not tell the people they are always right (the voice of God!) or ignore them as ignorant rabble.

Socrates bet on reason for justice. He did not get it in the short term for himself, but he showed the way. Reason will not ignore any sincere voice. Reason will not bow to credentials and assume those having them are always right. Reason will not confuse a majority with the truth.

Good leaders are not elitists or populists, but reasonable

No reason, no justice.

 

—————————————–

Plato is the greatest philosopher outside of Christendom. Reject him or accept him, nobody ignores him. This summer I will be looking at the first lines of all of his dialogues. Because he carefully crafted his dialogues, the first line often contain clues to the meaning of what will come next. I have written about how to read Plato in When Athens Met Jerusalem and The Great Books ReaderI tried my hand at Platonic myth making in Chasing Shadows. 

Apology begins with the persuasiveness of crowds.


Browse Our Archives