FREE ESSAY ON SOCRATES AND THE SELF DEFENSE CLAUSE

SOCRATES AND THE SELF DEFENSE CLAUSE

The question of Morality and what it means:
Throughout the recorded history of man, there has been a series of questions continually
asked by each generation. ?Who are we? Where are we going? Why? Is there a God?? Are just
a few of the questions that continue to engage the minds of so many today. But perhaps
the most difficult one to really grasp has to do with the theories of ethics and
morality, or in layman's terms, ?What is good and bad, and how do we live our lives to
uphold the good while shunning the bad?? As time has gone on there have been many
theories and ideas proposed, ranging from the divine hand theory (dealing with how
organized religion handles the matter of ethics), from utilitarianism (short version
maximizing pleasure while minimizing pain, ethical egoism on a grander scale really), to
the vague theories of Immanual Kant, (who stressed the theory of universal law,
categorical imperatives, and what would happen if we applied it, supposedly). With all
these great philosophical minds over the course of eons working on the problem with
ethics, I find it rather ironic that no one pays heed to what one of the greatest minds
in history, Socrates ( circa 470 B.C. to 399 B.C.) had to say concerning this question of
morality. Socrates, seemingly was able to create a whole ethical theory based on a single
statement, ?One must never do wrong, even for wrong received.? Words he uttered literally
on his death bed just days before his execution took place in Athens. Simple words, yet
with such magnitude and underlying meaning that we must examine this further in order to
fully understand it.
The statement, ?One must never do wrong, even for wrong received? seems to be a
predecessor to the Judo-Christian philosophy ?treat others as you would have them treat
you? or more commonly referred to as the golden rule. A first glance we seem to have all
we need laid out for us right there. This statement calls for us to be honest, not to
kill or maim anyone, and creates a world where life is more simple. Or does it? What
about situations where some one is violating you, trying to harm you? May you defend
yourself, and in fact is self defense a legitimate moral justification in this case? 
Looking at the literal text in ?One must never do wrong, even for wrong received? seems
to imply that you may not. Even if our life is at stake, since attacking them would be
doing wrong, we must not do so.? So in other words, Socrates must hold that self defense
cannot be a legitimate moral justification for your actions. 
Ah but does he really ? Is it wrong to defend your life? I think not, in fact it is one
of the highest goods possible. Not only are you saving a life by doing so (your own) you
are also reaffirming to the public that human life is indeed sacred, and more so should
be defended against all evils. In fact your self-defense appeals to the Athenian virtues
of justice. One must recall that Athenians hold six virtues up above all others, and that
these should not only be followed, but are indeed the highest qualities one could have.
In this example, by defending your life your showing giving a shining example of justice
(namely its wrong to kill). Since you are showing justice (knowing what is right and what
is wrong) your making an example of our initial maxim ?One must never do wrong, even for
wrong received.? 
You can also defend yourself in a nonlethal way, which by then doing so you are appealing
to the Athenian virtue of piety (knowing what is sacred, or holy if you will). By saving
your life and sparing your attackers, you are showing that life is a sacred thing, which
further promotes your own piousness. For the vast majority of us, it hold true that we
value life above all else, that defending it is a good in of itself, and based on
Athenian virtue it seems the same here. Also by knowing what is pious you again become
one who is a ?expert? so to speak on morality, and are showing that defending yourself is
not a wrong being committed, thereby letting yourself still adhere to the initial maxim
?One must never do wrong, even for wrong received?.
Defending against an attack also constitutes courage.(which once again is appealing to
one of the six Athenian virtues) Socrates shows that himself in Laches, when it is
brought up in the definition of courage as a man defending his post. By using the war
examples, Socrates shows that while he may be against outright invading other
territories, he shows that defending your life and land is in fact a courageous thing to
do.
It is with theses thoughts in mind that we come back to our original problem, is
defending yourself against a attack legitimate moral justification? We now have the
following arguments for showing it is. First is that in defending yourself from a life
threatening attack you are being courageous, which is considered a virtue. Secondly you
are saving a life, which is both shows piety (remember showing life should be revered)
and justice (it is wrong to kill). With these three virtues behind our initial maxim, it
seems that self-defense indeed is justifiable, and in fact by doing so you are
demonstrating the same virtues that are inherently shown in the maxim itself.