Socates V. Perpetua Essay

In the retelling of his trial by his associate, Plato, entitled “The Apology”; Socrates claims in his defense that he only wishes to do good for the polis. I believe that Socrates was innocent of the accusations that were made against him, but he possessed contempt for the court and displayed that in his conceitedness and these actions led to his death.

As a defender of civic virtue, the significance of obligation and authority of one’s representative government epitomizes the magnitude of respect that Socrates had for Athenian Jurisprudence, irrespective of the fact that he was prosecuted against. In the accounts of the Apology and Crito, there exists a plethora of evidence that demonstrate Socrates’s adherence of institutionalized authority. His loyalty of the Athenian State derives from his notion that the obligation to surrender to the law manifests a just society. One may ask, “how is it possible for a persecuted man to continue to profess allegiance to a polity that sought his trial and execution”? Though many would not have the capacity to sustain such integrity, Socrates had his reasons in

First, he said a leader must be liked by enough of his people to avoid any type of uprising. He believed that anyone who spoke out against the prince must be gotten rid of. This is a major violation of one’s rights and something Socrates would have been outraged by. Plato starts The Apology by discussing how Socrates would teach the youth about his ideal government while openly criticizing the government of Athens. Socrates believed this type of free speech was necessary to form a fair and moral nation. Socrates also uses his trial as a symbol of free speech as he continued to speak out against the government there. He certainly would not have supported Machiavelli’s attempts to suppress free speech. Socrates goes so far as to say, “I made my defense speech like this: I much prefer to die having made my defense speech in this way than to live in that way” (The Apology 20). Here we see that Socrates is willing to die if it means he can speak freely. He truly thought free speech was the only way to check the government’s power and for the people to have a voice. At the time of his trial, speaking out against the Athenian government was almost unheard of and was considered a form of treason. Socrates wanted to use his trial as a way to criticize his leaders in the hope that more people would follow his lead. He believed free speech was necessary to

In “Apology” and “Crito”, stories of Socrates’s case against Athens written by Plato, he accepts the death penalty for a crime he did not commit. Whether people accept his response or critique it, many concepts such as civil disobedience, democracy, and obligation are highlighted. Through the analysis of Civil Disobedience by Thoreau, Letter from Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King, and Obligation to the state by Howard Zinn, dismantle Socrates reasoning to accept the death penalty as a way form of activism. Socrates believes “one should never do wrong in return, nor do any man harm, no matter what he may have done to you”(Plato. Crito. 52). This statement questions the concept of civil disobedience as a form of activism and represents the way Socrates views accomplishing

He proclaims that “examining both myself and others is really the very best thing that a man can do, and that life without this sort of examination is not worth living” (Plato 66). Socrates believes that the government will be able to change so that people who value goodness and truth would be in power. However, later in the Apology, Socrates contradicts himself when he explains why he has led a mostly private life, saying that “if I had long ago attempted to take part in politics, I should have died long ago” (Plato 58). Socrates believes “a man who really fights for justice must lead a private, not a public, life” (Plato 59). This goes against what he has been saying for the rest of the trial and demonstrates the unrealistic quality of the high standards to which he holds the government and leaders. If Socrates says it is dangerous for proponents of justice to live a public life, it becomes extremely difficult for politicians to be virtuous and morally good, since politicians live essentially their whole lives in the public sphere. It is not realistic for Socrates to believe that the government of Athens could progress so that good people hold the power, when he has shown that in his own experience and observations it is not safe for good people to hold public positions.

From the monarchs of the ancient era to the democracy of today, order has been maintained by means of rules and regulations known as laws. Compliance with these laws is enforced through punishments ranging in severity according to the crimes committed to reduce violence and misconduct from individuals within a society. However, just as citizens consent to abide by the laws of the state in which they reside, one is compelled to preserve justice and condemn the unjust decisions of man when the social contract contradicts the laws sanctioned by God. Approaching this conflict between natural and manmade laws in a non-violent manner is called “civil disobedience”.

Socrates’s offering to the jury is to tell the truth, despite not admitting that it is simply his truth and thus not the entire truth, he is not able to convey to the jury the importance of not killing him. A bad citizen would try to undermine the jury by committing perjury and disobeying the decision of the court. He however, wouldn’t even like it if the jury committed perjury on his behalf, “Socrates says what he means on the stand hold honesty above all else, so when he is offered a chance to escape from his execution he does not take it. By refusing to escape, he reiterates how sticking to agreements is important to him. Socrates' commitment to the societal agreement between him and the city where he is allowed to live in

To Socrates laws only have meaning because the people give them meaning and only by following the laws do we see the actual value of them. According to Socrates the relationship of the people and the states are like that of a child and their parents. He claims that state raises the people by guiding them with laws giving them order and educates the people of what’s right and what’s wrong. Socrates does not believe in disobeying the law to set examples as you would not disobey your parents just to prove a point. Socrates is appreciative for what state has done for him and feels as if it is his duty and obligation to repay them or show gratitude to the state by following its laws.

He also explains to Crito that the citizen is bound to the laws like a child is bound to a parent, and so to go against the laws would be like striking a parent. Rather than simply break the laws and escape, Socrates should try to persuade the laws to let him go. These laws present the citizen's duty to them in the form of a kind of social contract. By choosing to live in Athens, a citizen is endorsing the laws, and is willing to follower by them. Therefore, if he was to break from prison now, having so consistently validated the social contract, he would be making himself an outlaw who would not be welcome in any other civilized state for the rest of his life. Furthermore when he dies, he will be harshly judged in the underworld for behaving unjustly toward his city's laws. In this way, Socrates chooses not to attempt escape but he dies as a martyr, not for himself, but for his city and its system of justice.

Plato’s account of Socrates’ defense against charges of corrupting the youth and heresy, reveal the ancient teacher’s view of justice as fairness and support of rule of law. In the Apology, Socrates faces a moral dilemma: to either accept his punishment for crimes he did not commit or to accept the assistance of his friends and escape death by the hand of the state. His choice to accept death in order to maintain rule of law reveals his belief of justice. He beliefs his punishment to be just not because he committed the crimes but because his sentence came through a legal process to which he consented. By sparing his life, he would weaken the justice system of Athens which he values above his own existence. This difference between the two men’s beliefs regarding justice draws the sharpest contrast in their views of effective leadership and government.

Socrates’ adherence to the law causes him to refuse Crito’s offer to help him out of prison. As a citizen of Athens, the duty to oblige with the contractual agreement is a must. Contractual relationship has been established between Socrates and the state as he has benefited all the goods such as education and protection of the laws however when failure to comply, consequences such as execution must be faced. For Socrates, escaping is an unjust act and for which if he did act upon it, would lead to more consequences. For instance, Crito would be involved in an unjust act and in acceptance to his punishment, he made sure to explain why he must remain in prison. One argument made is that if he did escape then the system would be destroyed. A destroyed

Socrates would rather be punished or die before he breaks the laws that were set forth by his state, and this he says later in the same passage, “I should run any risk on the side of law and justice rather than join you. (Cahn pg. 38 Apology b10-c2).”

The author, who is Plato, concludes that Socrates’ decision of accepting the death penalty was the correct thing to do. Plato mentioned a list of arguments that Socrates’ stated about morality. One of Socrates’ central arguments to Crito that was mentioned by Plato, was “you should never do wrong, even in return for wrong done to you.” Plato agreed that it was wrong of the people of Athens to put Socrates on trial for his life just because they thought he was corrupting to youth and worshipping the wrong gods. But according to Socrates’ argument, even if someone does something wrong to him, it is not morally right to do something wrong back to that person. If Socrates would escape from prison, he would be doing something wrong back to the people of Athens which would be going against his own argument. Another argument of Socrates that Plato shares is “you should never injury others, even in return for injury done to you.” The people of Athens are injuring Socrates by executing him, but Socrates agrees that if he continues to live, he will be continuing to corrupt the youth and worship other gods, which is injuring other people. By continuing to live, this would be going against one of his

On the off chance that this were the situation, then why did Socrates talk against the state? The Filial Piety contention gets to be risky as Socrates repudiates his own particular activities of talking against government officials. To finish up, I accept that Socrates ought to escape from jail on the grounds that the Principle of Fidelity expect that a law is constantly

Socrates is one of the three greatest philosophers of Greek classical thought. helped to provide the foundations of Western thought. A number of issues concerning his beliefs remain controversial, and there is still doubt about the reasons for his death and whether he could or should have sought to escape his fate. Socrates dealt with living in poverty, he overcame poverty. He didn't let poverty get to him. , when he was arrested by the state on charges of corrupting the youth of Athens and not worshipping the gods of the city. He was brought to trial and condemned to death. Socrates chose to swallow the hemlock that killed him even though it is likely that he could have escaped from confinement had he so desired. However, Socrates