This
past week, we read a document titled The
Last Days of Socrates (Crito) that described a conversation between
Socrates and Crito in prison the day before Socrates was to be killed. In his conversation, Crito begs
Socrates to escape prison and to continue teaching Athenians despite his
conviction for corrupting the youth. However, Socrates refuses and is too
stubborn to leave with Crito.
Socrates’
decision to remain in jail is primarily based on his respect for law and the
judicial system in Athens. He believes
that he should not undermine the justice system by despite his disagreement
with his sentence. Crito believes that Socrates is wrongfully convicted and would
better serve society as a teacher rather than as a martyr on behalf of the
judicial system. He explains that it is only fair that Socrates should have the
right to escape.
I
believe that both of these arguments are extremely logical and the conflict is
not easy to solve. So, I pose the
question, if one disagrees with a judicial judgment, is it right for him/her to
ignore the judgment (and to escape as in the case of Socrates), or is it better
as a believer in an accountable government to demonstrate respect for the
justice system? In other words, do the ends of helping society (by teaching) and
escaping punishment like Socrates could have done justify the means of undermining
the justice system and in turn challenging its legitimacy?
I
cannot deny the fact that Socrates deserved to escape, raise his children,
continue teaching, and question the ideas of powerful men in Athens who did not
support his thinking. It makes
perfect sense for Crito, a close friend of Socrates, to beg him to escape
prison because his conviction is unfair and cruel. However, I believe that Socrates, a man whose priority is to
approve Athenian society, makes the right choice by remaining in prison.
I
feel strongly about this point because in the long run, it seems most honorable
and beneficial to society to comply with how the Athenian justice system had
decided Socrates’ fate. By publically
undermining the decision to convict him, he would have shown that any imprisoned
individual who felt he/she was innocent, deserved the right to escape. This
sounds like quite the un-Socrates-ish thing to do. If Socrates had the best interests of Athens in mind, he
certainly would not jeopardize its justice system.
In
a broader perspective, if a respected role model and teacher in society were to
spread the belief that the justice system did not need to be strictly followed,
this could lead to major chaos within society. Crime rates could shoot up and faith in the justice system
would drop. If people no longer believed that the justice system served and
protected the citizens of a society properly, it is likely that not many would
abide by its rules.
It
may be righteous and selfless to remain in prison to improve trust and faith in
the justice system, but it is easier said than done. If one were to be wrongfully
convicted and sentenced to death, I believe that it would be very likely that
he/she would escape prison given the opportunity. It is not a selfish decision for an individual to believe
that he/she deserves to be free if he/she is innocent. It is not inhumane for one to put
his/her own health before that of the justice system.
This
goes to show how unique of a man Socrates was. Throughout his life, he worked and taught with the intention
of improving life in Athens. Until the day he was killed, he was dedicated to
strengthening organization and morality in Athenian life.
open institutions Fee-charging institutions with regard to kids out of wealthier households. https://imgur.com/a/zsh3Tke https://imgur.com/a/pdo4vt3 https://imgur.com/a/7IJq1nf https://imgur.com/a/GXUUNtG https://imgur.com/a/KUW5uXW https://imgur.com/a/eMDKzMs https://imgur.com/a/9gn7lQL
ReplyDelete