Socrates: The Suicide That Led to The Social Contract

By Steven Clyde

*This piece is a subchapter for my upcoming book “My Government!”*


This ancient idea of the social contract dates back to Ancient Greece where it was first established as a philosophical idea, and from there it was set to take foot in any society that reminisced in the work of these ancient philosophers. It is no surprise that Athens between the 3rd to 6th centuries gave us many of the ideas that developed the framework of the Western world and where the modern state as we know it is derived. Pre-Socratic philosophers such as Thales of Miletus[1] (624 BC-546BC), Pythagoras[2](570BC-495BC), Parmenides[3](510-540BC[4] – Death Unknown), etc., paved the way for the prospects of reason and logic as fundamental ideas to adhere to over mystical figures as their guiding source of wisdom. We would consider these thinkers cosmologists in that they sought to find objective truths that tie the universe together.

Socrates

Socrates (469 BC-399 BC), a remarkable figure and thinker born and raised in Athens, Greece, never wrote anything down, yet he was very much interested in the individual and justice. Unlike the pre-Socratics who again held closely to views of cosmology, Socrates was also a fan of the sophists and the types of questions they were asking as he was very outspoken about public affairs and what was happening within the polis. Though never holding a professional teaching position, he was open to be a teacher and speak to whomever was open to a dialogue, and through his teachings he gave birth to a new era of thought in history.


For the history you didn’t learn in school, check out Liberty Classroom:

Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day….

A significant point he stressed was that the individual is to decide right and wrong for themselves, and that immoral and unjust acts can only come out of a state of ignorance. Though we know that to be untrue in that smart and evil people are commonplace, he nevertheless had faith in the individual and thought the mind mattered much more than stigmas; in fact he often refused to give his students answers as he wanted them to figure things out for themselves.

Everything we know about his teachings have been explained through a series of recollected dialogues by his closest students Plato and Xenophon, as well as one of his oldest and dearest friends Crito of Alopece. His ideas of Socratic Irony[5], Socratic Questioning[6] and the Socratic Method[7] have been extremely insightful in developing the ideas of argumentation ethics which Hans Hermann-Hoppe fully developed two millenniums later to create an a priori view of private property rights based on argumentation. Among the ideas of a free society such as natural law and private property, one of the reasons why Western civilization is so successful is that we have a general sense that it’s better to use discussion and coordination over violence to resolve conflicts. As we will discuss in chapter 2, private property is a defining characteristic needed to have discussion in the first place, as an individual at the bare minimum needs to exist in an instance where 1.) they own their own body and the ability to speak, act, and feel and 2.) they don’t have aggression used against them when they engage in any of these described mannerisms or actions. Based on what Plato provided for us as the framework of the mind of Socrates, he was a man of ideas and a threat to the state of Athens with his ruthlessness in wanting to question everything and everyone.

Socrates led a humble life as a teacher, seeking to attract his students not by intimidation but instead through argumentation and extending ideas to their logical conclusions. Asceticism was not a concern of his nor did he humor those who held such views; he was interested in finding happiness in life and this very much molded the upcoming Aristotelian view of the world which is that people should try to do what brings them enjoyment. On the contrary, there was a reason that many of the ancient philosophers were deemed “sophists”; this was to intentionally denounce and ostracize them.[8] Compared to today’s world where we predominantly have both theists and atheists, being an atheist in Socrates time period was blasphemy to the state in that the mystical gods were thought to play a literal role in society. For example, if we hear a door randomly close behind us, we don’t assume it’s a ghost or spirit; we can assume the window was open in that room and a draft caused the door to shut, or maybe even it was a household pet walking by. But in periods where mystical fanaticism was as real as the food they ate and clothes they wore, a door (if they had doors like we do today) randomly closing was done by the will of the gods, not by any objective means of reality. The way this shaped life in Athens became very evident throughout Socrates life as he aged, and led him to question authority even more, regardless of the fact that he wasn’t necessarily an atheist though he was deemed to be one.

As the 27-year long Peloponnesian War came to an end in 404 BC[9], life in Athens was shook after Sparta had dominated the Athenians and other surrounding areas, and the beloved polis was falling apart year after year. Socrates had come to be a prominent figure during the time, which led to his ultimate downfall; the state of Athens had realized that his ideas were a threat to the city, and a threat to their Gods.

In 399 BC, Meletus[10] of the Pitthean deme in Athens prosecuted Socrates and put him on trial for the charges of 1.) Impiety and 2.) Corrupting the youth of Athens.[11] More specifically with regards to impiety, Meletus, in the words of Socrates, claimed he is “a maker of gods, and because I make novel gods and do not acknowledge the old ones, he indicts me for their sake”.[12] The youth of Athens had become fond of Socrates’s ability to convey the illogical fallacies made up among the ascetics and began to question their superiors on the legitimacy of the Greek gods, which was enough to make a case against him in court.

Plato

Plato and Xenophon both recorded accurate[13] accounts of Socrates trial, in which he made a convincing case for himself.[14] He began his testimony pondering on whether teaching others is a crime and an injustice, and as a man that lived his live in poverty, he noted that “if you have heard from anyone that I attempt to educate human beings and make money from it, that is not true either.”[15] And as he’d travel around to speak to these so called wise men, he’d realize sooner than later that they actually weren’t so wise, in a seeming direct correlation with how politicians are today. The hatred that came of him was solely based on his unwillingness to concede to the common viewpoints, and especially that of the politician:

“So I considered him thoroughly—I need not speak of him by name, but he was one of the politicians—and when I considered him and conversed with him, men of Athens, I was affected something like this: it seemed to me that this man seemed to be wise, both to many other human beings and most of all to himself, but that he was not. And then I tried to show him that he supposed he was wise, but was not. So from this I became hateful both to him and to many of those present.”[16]

After having previously conversed with politicians, poets, and even manual artisans[17], he realized that as a man who claimed they are not wise and know nothing, he still is wiser than these so called “wise men”:
 

“This is the examination, men of Athens, from which I have incurred many hatreds, the sort that are harshest and gravest, so that many slanders have arisen from them, and I got this name of being “wise.”[18]

As the jury sentenced him to death, he was given a chance to make a counter proposal, yet he refused. He could have agreed to go into exile, but he knew that wherever he went he would be faced with the same hostility:

“Noble indeed would life be for me, a human being of my age, to go into exile and to live exchanging one city for another, always being driven out! For I know well that wherever I go, the young will listen to me when I speak, just as they do here. And if I drive them away, they themselves will drive me out by persuading their elders. But if I do not drive them away, their fathers and families will drive me out because of these same ones.”[19]

As one of the wisest philosophers in history, he had made a fatal mistake in his thinking. Though making a compelling case that the trial was based on phony premises, and that providing discourse that led others to think differently was a laughable crime at best, he had ultimately given in to the State’s wishes instead of seeking a way out. Though he spent much of his life yearning to find truth in justice, this became conflated when he presumed that the laws he lived under were moral and just because he never refused to leave, and that his life having been established in Athens since his birth meant that he had a duty to abide by the laws, no matter how grim.

A night or two before his execution, Plato wrote down the conversation he overheard while present with Crito outside Socrates’s prison cell, begging through argumentation in the early hours of the morning to allow the people that wanted to help him escape to do so, as he awaited helplessly in his prison cell.[20] There were people in the town who were willing to help, and Crito brought silver along with him too, saying “some people only need to be given a little silver and they’re willing to rescue you and get you out of here. And on top of that, don’t you see how cheap those informers are and that we wouldn’t need to spend a lot of money on them?”. As Socrates refused, Crito reminded him that “I think you are betraying your sons, whom you could raise and educate” and “So I am ashamed both on your behalf and on behalf of us your friends, that this whole affair surrounding you will be thought to have happened due to some cowardice on our part: the hearing of the charge in court, that it came to trial when it need not have, and the legal contest itself, how it was carried on, and, as the absurd part of the affair, that by some badness and cowardice on our part we will be thought to have let this final act get away from us, we who did not save you, nor you save yourself, when it was possible and we could have done so if we were of the slightest use”.[21]

Socrates, being of old age, attempted to rationalize all of this and his execution by taking note that he was born and raised in Athens, and he gained all his skills and knowledge there, and so did he not consent to the laws of the land because he lived there? Much of the conversation consists of Socrates imagining what is it the people would say and whether it held true:

“If the laws and the community of the city came to us when we were about to run away from here, or whatever it should be called, and standing over us were to ask, “Tell me, Socrates, what are you intending to do? By attempting this deed, aren’t you planning to do nothing other than destroy us, the laws, and the civic community, as much as you can? Or does it seem possible to you that any city where the verdicts reached have no force but are made powerless and corrupted by private citizens could continue to exist and not be in ruins?”[22]

 As his logical mistakes escalated in the conversation, he didn’t hesitate to make it known that when you’re born into a society, you’re in essence the slave of that society:

“Well, then. Since you have been born and brought up and educated, could you say that you were not our offspring and slave from the beginning, both you and your ancestors? And if this is so, do you suppose that justice between you and us is based on equality, and do you think that whatever we might try to do to you, it is just for you to do these things to us in return?”[23]

In confusing the state with natural law, he equates the land a person is born on with positive obligations to the rest of the inhabitants of that land forevermore:

“Are you so wise that it has slipped your mind that the homeland is deserving of more honor and reverence and worship than your mother and father and all of your other ancestors? And is held in higher esteem both by the gods and by men of good sense?”

 And leading to the ultimate manifestation between the relationship of man and state, he basks again in the assumption that an agreement has been made to obey immoral laws as well as moral ones, because we choose to stay in the society:

“But whoever remains with us, having observed how we decide lawsuits and take care of other civic matters, we claim that this man by his action has now made an agreement with us to do what we command him to do, and we claim that anyone who does not obey is guilty three times over, because he disobeys us who gave birth to him, and who raised him, and because, despite agreeing to be subject to us, he does not obey us or persuade us if we are doing something improper, and although we give him an alternative and don’t angrily press him to do what we order but instead we allow either of two”

And in his closing remarks, which touched upon the supposed contract he has with the state, he noted:

“”Aren’t you”, they might say, “going against your contract and agreement with us ourselves, which you were not forced to agree to nor deceived about nor compelled to decide upon in a short time but over seventy years, in which time you could have gone away if we did not satisfy you and these agreements did not appear just to you. You did not prefer Lakedaimonia* nor Crete, each of which you claim is well-governed, nor any other of the Hellenic cities or the foreign ones, but you left it less than the lame and the blind and the other disabled people. Evidently the city and also we the laws were so much more pleasing to you than to other Athenians, for is a city without laws satisfactory to anyone? Now then, won’t you keep to your agreement? You will, if you are convinced by us, at any rate, Socrates; and at least you won’t look ridiculous by leaving the city.”

Socrates, as influential as he was (and still is to this day), handled himself in a self-loathing manner in which he felt he acted justly by complying with the orders of the state of Athens and the rule of the jury. At first glance it seems reasonable that a man of old age would have nowhere to go, especially with the threat of being coerced by another government elsewhere, but in making the decision to not exile himself he knew he was leaving a lasting impression especially among his prized students: that though the mind is of the utmost importance as is apparent with all the words we know of Socrates, this land you’re on now gave you the knowledge your mind has so you then owe it to the state to abide by all their falsehoods. The arrogance of not realizing that the knowledge he gained was through interactions with individuals, and not the state, is something he overlooked in handing the state complete morality over his life. And though it was apparent he made an attempt to fight for his life and win the case, his last words to Crito that morning were “then let it be, Crito, and let us act in this way, since this is where the god leads us.” [24], which itself is another indication that the charge of impiety against him was unjust. At his execution, he gave forth a myth of what might happen to the soul when we pass away, then drank the hemlock that took his life. As a man that spoke many great words and that had many great ideas, his legacy will always have ended with giving into state power and creating the notion that the land we’re born onto is in no way different than a signature on a contract to abide by the its laws.


[1] Considered the very first philosopher, though this is debatable

[2] Thought numbers are what connected all of reality

[3] The founder of logic

[4] Birth year accuracy still under scrutiny

[5] An intentional display of ignorance to show the other debater is displaying ignorance themselves

[6] A systematic type of questioning that gets to the bottom of the truth of things

[7] A method of teaching by question and answer, used by Socrates to teach his students and develop insights

[8] In Platos work Allegory of the Cave he describes the plight of the philosopher through people chained up in a cave in which all they ever see are shadows on the wall produced by the light of a fire behind them. As one of the chained men is released and enters outside in the real world, things are vivid and bright, and have texture, and there are sounds and all sorts of things never experienced before. Upon returning to explain to the other chained up men what reality is like outside of the cave, they laugh at him and accuse him of being crazy. The life of a philosopher is enduring the same criticism, in which they try to extract real objective meaning through thought experiments and discussion, but are often ascribed the word “sophist”.

[9] Socrates was a soldier and took place in many battles in this war

[10] Sometimes seen elsewhere as Meletos

[11] Plato, Euthyphro 2c-3b

[12] Ibid. 3b

[13] The account is thought to contain Socrates actual words

[14] Plato, Apology and also see Xenophon, Memorabilia

[15] Ibid. 19c

[16] Ibid. 21c–21d

[17] He conceded they knew things he didn’t and were wiser, but still fell short in other aspects

[18] Ibid. 23a

[19] Ibid. 37d-37e

[20] Plato, Crito

[21] Ibid. 45d-46a

[22] Ibid. 50a-50b

[23] Ibid. 50e

[24] Ibid. 54e