Socrates had numerous different opinions and reasonings during his lifetime. One of the reasonsing were,“One who would fight for the right ought not enter political life.” This statement is both right and wrong when implemented in real life.
Socrates could be saying several implications in his reasoning. Socrates definition of “fight” is to take part in a violent struggle whether physically or by other means. An example of this would be a diss track or boxing. When Socrates is saying “Right” he is talking about justice or the moral and legal capacity of a person. Another synonym would be “just”; this means behavior that is morally right and fair. What does “ought” mean? Ought means should or must. So far Socrates is saying, “One should have a violent struggle about moral and legal capacity to not (should not) get into political life.” What is a political life? Socrates must not be talking about the blitz and the glamour of it. He must be talking about something much deeper than that. Polis is the ancient Greek word for city state. Later, this words is changed due to the changing empire from Greek to Roman. The language changes from Greek to Latin as well but the word still live today as politics. Politics is defined as any activity that is related to the government, but many different activities and events can be called political. There are conventions such as the DNC or RNC which are political, hence the name, politic convention. You could also call certain protest political. These protest are mostly likely spurred by political events that happened recently like the women’s march in January 22nd, 2017. This helps relate back to what Socrates is talking about in his reasonings. What is the political life? The political life suggest that it is a person who is leading a life that is very involved with the government. This person who tries to change the way the government works whether from the inside or outside. An example of this would be anyone who works there such as the President, Congress people, judges, but also those who try to change lives through activist. An activists is a person who works to bring social and political change about certain topics. Socrates is reasoning is saying, “One should have a violent struggle about moral and legal capacity to not get into a life that involves the rules of the government.” Socrates lived in a world that doesn’t involve social security, healthcare, and other stuff that actively involves the government. It would be easy for that sort of society to not get into politics. Socrates didn’t have a good impression of the government. Although, he wasn’t technically against the democracy that the city of Athens practiced at the time, he didn’t like how it was run and he was the first philosophy to bring about the first usage of ethics . Instead, he wanted a network of knowledge available to the public so everyone has a little of political background. That way the public has a little bit of knowledge about how government. Socrates also died because he thought he was doing what was, “just and honorable”. He may have been critical of politics but he died for what right.
Does Socrates Reasoning make sense? Yes,to a certain extent it makes sense. Being in a political position means pleasing everyone to get their support. It could mean that you have to do something in order to please the majority even if it’s not the most “just” things to do; that’s how modern politics works. Congress people are the perfect people for this example. The people working there might be representing their constituents but at the same time why must be representing big companies in order to get money and stay in Congress. An example of this would be Marco Rubio. He is an example of why a person fighting for rights shouldn’t be in the political life. A particular example just came recently. Students from the recent mass shooting at Parkland, Florida asked him if he will continue to accept the “blood money” from NRA. His response to the question asked was because NRA shared views with him that he will. That was not the just thing to do, but was right for him in order to stay in Congress. Immanuel Kant states in Fundamental Principles of Metaphysics of Morals that,“…we can easily distinguish whether the action which agrees with duty is done from an obligation to duty or for some purpose of self interest”. In this example, Rubio might be doing his duty, he is doing it for his own self interest. This is why it is not wise to go into the political life if an individual is trying to fight for just.
To a certain extent, this reasoning doesn’t make any sense. Many people can lead a political life while fighting for justice. An example of this would be the Civil Rights Movement. Martin Luther King Jr devoted his life to the struggle against racism to get justice. He was practicing civil disobedience in the name of justice. Civil Disobedience is non violent act of disobeying a law. An example of this is the Montgomery Bus Boycott. The buses in Montgomery are being boycott so African American people can sit at the front of the bus and to get voting rights. This decade was filled with chaos for justice for those that were being discriminated against according to what the law says. These people fought against the government in order to change a social and political norm. There was a huge backlash against King in the government because the politicians were corrupt; their views and bias swayed their decision of what is best for the Nation. Taking on the government in order to right a wrong is why those who fight for what is right should take on the political life. Another example is the death of Cicero. He was a Roman politician and lawyer that died because he would rather die for what is for his country then run away like a coward. In the end, he met his faith at the hands of the governments leaders simply for calling out their abuse of power. This type of Civil Disobedience called for the highest sacrifice, but Cicero’s death couldn’t save the Republic from meeting it’s end.
Socrates wouldn’t have known what modern politics would have been like. His reasoning is undeveloped. His reasoning is right because politics can be messy and sometimes it means to put more powerful groups forward rather than your constituents. His reasoning is wrong, because fighting for what is right means having to be political. Government is filled with people who should and shouldn’t be in power, but hopefully no one should have to try and figure out which is which.
