Socrates Vs. Antigone

Justice view through the lens of two of the Ancient Greece most transcendental figures: Socrates and Antigone

In political life people are often called upon to accept and follow the laws, orders or decisions that are controversial and which they may disagree. Sophocles and Plato both clearly demonstrate this in their respective political writing: Antigone, and Crito. Both touch upon the matter of how the individual should react towards these controversial laws. Their main characters, Antigone and Socrates, ponder on the decision of whether they should rebel or abide to the controversial laws. Therefore, the motif of justice is strongly implied in both texts, however the interpretations both protagonist derive from this same concept differ. Meanwhile Socrates concludes that justice bounds him to face the punishment imposed by his state (Athens), Antigone proclaims justice as the reason that she must defy hers (Thebes). Despite their opposing views, it is interesting to note that they do follow some kind of similar criteria as guidance for their decision-making.

To some extent both Socrates and Antigone justify their actions according to the divine. In Plato dialogue, Crito pleas Socrates to escape jail through a series of persuasive arguments, nonetheless Socrates refutes all of them by going over long-standing points of his Socratic philosophy. He begins his defense by stating that “what we ought to worry about is not so much what people in general will say about us but what the expert in injustice and injustice says, the single authority and with him the truth itself” (Crito, 48a). Here Socrates refers to truth as being on the side of the experts of justice. If we compare this idea with Antigone’s reasoning, it is deduced that for Sophocles main character truth is located among the gods, who are the real experts of justice: “...it was not Zeus that made the proclamation; nor did Justice, which lives with those below, enact such laws as that, for mankind” (Antigone, 450 – 455). Therefore, Creon’s command, which consisted on denying Polyneices the traditional burial, is an injustice action since he is failing to observe the divine laws wishes: “Hades desires still desires equal rites for both [Polyneices and Eteocles]” (Antigone, 519). Even though, it is not explicitly shown in the Crito, Socrates doesn’t necessarily object to the divine nature of justice. Socrates is a firm believer that “one ought not to return an injustice or an injury to any person, whatever the provocation”(Crito, 49c), with this premise he argues that if one acts unjustly he or she will “ have to face our [the laws] anger…and in that place beyond [death] when our brothers, the Laws of Hades, know that you have done your best to destroy us [the laws], they will not receive you with a kindly welcome” (54c). It is important to point out that Socrates view of justice is much more secular than that of Antigone. Even so, it can be presumed, that if Socrates comprehends the importance of burial he would sympathize Antigone and consider that her disobedience towards the state is a just action.

Nonetheless, the same premise (one ought not to return an injustice) is further developed in the Crito and Socrates concludes that violating a just agreement constitutes an injury and an injustice. This new idea is the basis of his social contract theory , theory by which it can be implied that Socrates would not be eye on eye with Antigone’s actions. First, however, it is important to understand what this theory consists of.

Since for the Greeks being unjust meant being unjust to someone (not to an abstract concept) Socrates in order to explain his theory personifies Athens as a single actor capable of speaking for itself. By doing this Socrates is treating

...