Had Socrates a right to flee?
Had Socrates the right to flee, or, hat Socrates the duty to die?
Socrates faced a life ending death penalty, although having a well prepared opportunity to escape; nevertheless, he decided to die. Is this cruel decision to justify?
In Socrates’ eyes one has as a mature citizen a contract with the state where one lives. This contract contains duties for both sides. The state has to take care for his citizen whereas the citizen has not only to obey and protect the rules that the state determines but also acknowledge them – which in the situation of a death penalty means to accept this ruling without reservation no matter if it is right or wrong. Socrates argues it is better to suffer an unlawful act than to commit a wrong. Would he escape wouldn’t he be any better than those who condemned him to death even if this judgment has been wrong. With an escape he would lose his credibility and could not speak about virtue again. His family and friends would be negatively affected. Beyond that he would justify the death penalty trough wrongful behavior and legalize it retrospectively. In other words: One cannot fight unjustness with unjustness. Doing this would create a vicious circle of human suffering which never ends.
The virulent question now is if one should break the law because of a wrongful judgment – considering that the law is made by humans and humans can err? Or should we carry our ideals to the last extremes?
Not only is Socrates’ decision a brave one, it is also one which seems to be made without any personal involvement, as if Socrates himself would not be affected by it. His pure ratio has lead his argumentation, following in the final analysis the antique understanding of the almighty authority of law.
The law is the objective leader which dictates one’s behavior. Not decisive is his personal relation to the men who found the ruling; their reasoning becomes objective law as soon as it has the format of a judgment; for the better or the
Socrates faced a life ending death penalty, although having a well prepared opportunity to escape; nevertheless, he decided to die. Is this cruel decision to justify?
In Socrates’ eyes one has as a mature citizen a contract with the state where one lives. This contract contains duties for both sides. The state has to take care for his citizen whereas the citizen has not only to obey and protect the rules that the state determines but also acknowledge them – which in the situation of a death penalty means to accept this ruling without reservation no matter if it is right or wrong. Socrates argues it is better to suffer an unlawful act than to commit a wrong. Would he escape wouldn’t he be any better than those who condemned him to death even if this judgment has been wrong. With an escape he would lose his credibility and could not speak about virtue again. His family and friends would be negatively affected. Beyond that he would justify the death penalty trough wrongful behavior and legalize it retrospectively. In other words: One cannot fight unjustness with unjustness. Doing this would create a vicious circle of human suffering which never ends.
The virulent question now is if one should break the law because of a wrongful judgment – considering that the law is made by humans and humans can err? Or should we carry our ideals to the last extremes?
Not only is Socrates’ decision a brave one, it is also one which seems to be made without any personal involvement, as if Socrates himself would not be affected by it. His pure ratio has lead his argumentation, following in the final analysis the antique understanding of the almighty authority of law.
The law is the objective leader which dictates one’s behavior. Not decisive is his personal relation to the men who found the ruling; their reasoning becomes objective law as soon as it has the format of a judgment; for the better or the