Should socrates have broken the law and left prison

Woozley, as we have seen, has no difficulty in showing that the supposed consequences are illusory - that in all prob- ability nothing, or nothing of any importance, would happen to society if this one man acted to this extent illegally.

Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo

But, Socrates did acknowledge the authority of the court. His choice of living under the laws of this city has been free and deliberate. Socrates believes in living honorably and justly, and honoring his agreement to Athens would be the honorable and just thing to do. Socrates, in reply, calls attention to the danger that is involved in following public opinion.

But, in this case, he will attempt to relate not simply what they might say but rather what they would have a right to say in the event that he escaped. This means that Socrates should drink the hemlock.

If, acting on the advice of men who have no understanding, we injure the body, is it not true that we will incur an even greater evil by following the advice of those who have no proper understanding of the meaning of justice and that which pertains to that part of human nature that is superior to the body?

Socrates could not go back on his obligations to the city, and unless commanded to do that which in his judgment was morally wrong, he was duty-bound to obey its laws. Socrates does not deny that he has been treated unjustly by the court, and neither does he think that the judges who condemned him were competent to determine the correctness of his religious views or to decide whether he had really been a corrupter of the youth.

The consequences of one act of disobedience are clearly not the same as those of wholesale disobedience by large numbers of citizens; and Woozley seems to be on safe enough ground when he argues that 'the answer to the question Ongoing actions that endangered the newly restored democracy were not covered by the amnesty.

Crito has stated that he would gladly give all the money he has if by so doing he could secure Socrates' freedom, and if that should prove to be not enough, he knows of several friends who would likewise contribute whatever was necessary to accomplish this purpose.

Links behind paywalls or registration walls are not allowed. Acting in harmony with this voice, he was accustomed to do what he believed was right, and he would not depart from this course in order to save his own life. But since he had chosen to stay, he had, the Laws point out, again recognised their rightness.

Should we follow all opinions, or only our own opinions? They are not to be accepted just because they express the opinions of the majority but are to be followed only in those instances where they are supported by good reasons.

After Crito has admitted that this is true, the question is raised concerning whose opinion should be regarded seriously enough to be followed. Socrates argues the former, while I argue the latter: If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting.

Is there a contradiction? It is simply not true that all laws should be obeyed under any and all conditions. Crito has friends in Thessaly, and Socrates could live among them in peace, with no fears that the inhabitants of that place would ever cause him any trouble.

Clearly this will not do: I shall suggest, on the contrary, that though he has adopted somewhat oblique tactics in giving his reply, it is nevertheless intended to be a complete and adequate answer to all four points, since the defect which he attributes to Crito's mode of argument is to be found in each of them.

Overall, Socrates should have not drunk the hemlock because he would also be failing the gods and his duty.

Socrates should have drank the hemlock

The calm and quiet manner with which Socrates accepts his fate astonishes his visitor, but it is only one more illustration of the extent to which Socrates has achieved control of his feelings and emotions.

Socrates believed in living honorably and justly. Those who were known to have aided him in making his escape would be driven into exile or lose their property and be deprived of citizenship.

So it is on to the Phaedo and the death scene.Feb 28,  · Socrates didn't break the law - he was sentenced for crimes he didn't commit - yet in Crito, he forgoes the opportunity to escape from prison. He believes that this would be breaking the law, and that to break the laws of Athens is to harm Athens Resolved.

For instance, those who prosecuted and convicted Socrates have left no testament. Historians therefore face the challenge of reconciling the various evidence from the extant texts in order to attempt an accurate and consistent account of Socrates's life and work.

The worthy, the ones we should care about, will think that everything happened exactly as it should have”, Socrates replied.

Crito insists and tries to put pressure on him. “ All your friends are determined to risk everything to save you ”, he says. Socrates and Crito: Teaching Morals and Honor - Socrates was a one of the first philosophers and teachers known to Western philosophy.

He lived in Athens Greece from – B.C. and is studied to this day because of his insights and understanding of the way people should live. While on a moralistic view we may argue that Socrates should not escape from prison based on this argument because he has to show the importance of maintaining his promise, instead by not escaping he ignores the law.

All lawmakers have the feeling that their laws are final, that this law should never be broken. This writer has heard these arguments at a trial in Brisk. [1] The dictator of Poland, Pilsudski, had accused a number of Polish politicians in court and charged them with trying to violate his dictatorship.

Should socrates have broken the law and left prison
Rated 3/5 based on 94 review