Verdict on Socrates

[Eurynomus]

Alright, this is me thinking aloud here.....err, typing aloud?... concerning Socrates' acceptance of his death sentence. So, there are probably going to be errors/contradictions in my thinking somewhere, but that's the point of me posting this...

Basically, I am trying to figure out whether or not Socrates was right in accepting the verdict given to him by his peers in Athens.

I'm thinking this through and right now I see it this way: In Crito, Socrates describes his reasoning for not fleeing when Crito offers him the chance, and part of that reasoning is based around the fact that Socrates had accepted and agreed to obey the laws of Athens for his whole life, through a just agreement or social contract, and for one person to decide whether or not they want to follow the law would be to destroy the power of law itself. More or less, as far as I see, Socrates was saying that if he didn't like the way Athens was run, or didn't accept it, he should have either made a movement to change the law or gone elsewhere.

In addition, Socrates lived in Athens during a time where trials for impiety were somewhat commonplace.

So, with this in mind, was he right to accept the death sentence after his trial?

I would say that originally, Socrates should not have put up with the laws of Athens at all. If he lived in a society that could try people for things such as impiety, he would be making a contract with an unjust agent... which I would consider to be an irrational thing to do.

The problem I have encountered with this is -- where else would Socrates have gone? If I remember the story correctly, I am pretty sure it was said that although Socrates had praised some other city-states, Athens was agreed to be the freest, despite those several faults. There was, to the best of my knowledge, no America, nor was there any other similar country where freedom of religion and freedom of speech was openly embraced.

What do you all think about any of this, or any other aspect I didn't include? ... again, I apologize for this being pretty messy, but it's kind of coming out my head as I go along.

[DarkWaters]

So, with this in mind, was he right to accept the death sentence after his trial?

Socrates was not right to accept his death sentence on an unjust verdict. Socrates should have realized that life is the standard of value and protecting his life is more important than upholding a system of law that would routinely sentence a man to death for "disbelieving in the ancestral gods" and "corrupting the youth".

Edited April 11, 2007 by DarkWaters

[Eurynomus]

Socrates was not right to accept his death sentence on an unjust verdict. Socrates should have realized that life is the standard of value and protecting his life is more important than upholding a system of law that would routinely sentence a man to death for "disbelieving in the ancestral gods" and "corrupting the youth".

Agreed -- but what should he have done to that end? Should he have fled when Crito gave him the chance? Or should he have acted earlier?

To me, what Socrates tells Crito in regards to rejecting his offer to escape is reasonable -- if the society in which Socrates had chosen to live were a just society that did not sentence men to death for impiety, etc.

If Socrates were to see his life as the standard of value, what should he have done? I think the solution should have come far before the trial even happened. Don't you think that if he saw his life as the standard of value, he should not have opted to live in Athens in the first place?

OR, is it more of a case where, since there was no other freer society in which TO live, he should have chosen to live in Athens but not to abide by its laws, since they are not objective laws... and when that law gives him an unjust verdict, he should not follow that verdict either?

[DarkWaters]

Agreed -- but what should he have done to that end? Should he have fled when Crito gave him the chance? Or should he have acted earlier?

To me, what Socrates tells Crito in regards to rejecting his offer to escape is reasonable -- if the society in which Socrates had chosen to live were a just society that did not sentence men to death for impiety, etc.

If Socrates were to see his life as the standard of value, what should he have done? I think the solution should have come far before the trial even happened. Don't you think that if he saw his life as the standard of value, he should not have opted to live in Athens in the first place?

OR, is it more of a case where, since there was no other freer society in which TO live, he should have chosen to live in Athens but not to abide by its laws, since they are not objective laws... and when that law gives him an unjust verdict, he should not follow that verdict either?

I probably should read up on my greek history to get a better understanding of what feasible options Socrates actually had. At the very least, if he truly had no feasible chance of escape given his age, lackadaisical places of refuge or fear of retribution against his loved ones, perhaps he could have at least refused to acknowledge that he did anything wrong and even go so far as to call the courts evil. This would be analogous to Hank Rearden's behavior during his trial.

Incidentally, I actually happen to be reading a book on Ancient Greece at the moment. Perhaps I can comment more on this next week.

Edited April 11, 2007 by DarkWaters

[Eurynomus]

perhaps he could have at least refused to acknowledge that he did anything wrong and even go so far as to call the courts evil.

This would be what I suggest, also... and he actually DID do this -- although at the moment I am not in the mood to dig through The Apology and find the exact place (I'll get back to you later with that) -- but he told the court that a just "punishment" for what he had done would be to be given free meals in the hall where all the heroes and athletes dine.

Yeah, I'd be interested to see what you think after reading a bit more of Greek history... and I'd like to see what others think, too.

I still need to think this out a little... I'll post more when I give it some more time.

[SkyTrooper]

My class in Plato had a huge impact on me, and in reading the dialogs I immediately felt an affinity for Socrates. It was before I had much exposure to Objectivism. I became rather angry after reading the Crito, and I was really pulling for him to escape despite my vague understanding of the history. It was after reading his justifications for not escaping that I realized how jacked up Plato's philosophy was. When I read the Phaedo I became physically sick and was actually upset for days afterwards (I know, it sounds crazy!).

I'll try to hunt down my original essay on it. Clearly he should have escaped.

Edited April 12, 2007 by badkarma556

[SkyTrooper]

My old essay on the Crito:

In the “Crito” Socrates is given an opportunity by his friend Crito to escape from prison. Socrates argues against escape using a personification of the Laws of Athens. The argument is reductive, taking the one moral criterion that it is just to maintain just agreements and unjust to fail to fulfill a just agreement and uses that criterion to make the final decision. The Laws argue using three main points which are that by disobeying the court’s verdict to put Socrates to death that Socrates would destroy or be attempting to destroy the city, that the Laws and the State are like his parents and that by disobeying them he is failing in his filial duty towards them, and that he has made an implicit agreement to either obey the Laws or persuade them of their injustice. Taken as individual reasons the arguments are extremely weak. If it is taken as a single argument it is compelling enough to convince Socrates to choose death over life in exile.

Crito’s plea for his friend to escape is not immediately compelling to Socrates. In order to determine if it is just to escape or just to face his penalty he gives a voice to the Laws. As such he treats them as moral agents capable of bringing claims of justice against him. Doing this seems strange since immediately prior to this personification he explained to Crito how “we should not then think so much of what the majority will say about us, but what he will say who understands justice and injustice” and in a democracy the laws obviously are made by the ignorant majority rather than by the just minority. Either this is the source of his suggestion of an agreement to “obey or persuade” later in the argument, or he does not consider the source of the laws at all.

The first argument by the Laws is that by disobeying the court’s verdict and escaping Socrates would be attempting to destroy the city and its laws. This argument is based on the idea of universality. The Laws are claiming that by him doing something that everyone else will also do it and that if Socrates chooses which Laws to obey so will everyone else. Socrates certainly does not think peoples actions will differ based upon what he does so he cannot be stating this literally, since it would follow from this that a criminal who does not understand justice will try not try to avoid his sentence if Socrates, who understands justice, decides not to escape. He is rather using it as his criteria for ethics by posing the question “if everyone did this what would happen?” The Laws are right to claim that if everyone acted in a just way the laws would be destroyed, but not right to claim the city would be destroyed. If in fact every person had devoted their lives to understanding justice as Socrates did there would be no need for laws at all and the city would thrive. A just man, if he through accident committed an injustice, would be the most eager to receive his due punishment and so would ensure that he received it. The laws are only necessary for those who do not care about justice.

The next reason the Laws give to Socrates for staying to receive his punishment is one of filial duty. The Laws claim that they are like his parents and as such are on higher moral ground than he is and so must obey the Laws. The Laws are right to claim an asymmetrical relationship but it is not asymmetrical in the way that the Laws claim. Socrates is in fact the one on higher moral ground since he must, because of the way he lives his life, understand justice better than the Laws which were made by the general public. The reason that parents are generally considered on higher moral ground is because they are more experienced so have probably learned more about justice. Socrates goes as far to point out the relationship of a slave to his master and the ethical system he is using to make his decision is in fact very similar to that of a slave.

The final argument of the Laws of Athens is that Socrates has entered into an implicit agreement with the Laws to either obey them or to persuade as to their injustice.

By staying in the city after he had reached voting age the Laws claim that Socrates agreed to follow their laws. It is unlikely that a just man would agree to obey an unjust law which is why the clause about persuasion is necessary for this argument to have any weight. However, Socrates has learned with his discussions with the Sophists that oratory is the skill that produces persuasion among many people without knowledge, as in the assembly. He is essentially saying that he thinks he has agreed to either follow unjust laws or be skilled enough in oratory to persuade the assembly of their unjust nature. Escape does not seem worse in “badness” to oratory, which persuades without knowledge and this agreement would basically mean that it is not possible for a just man to live in a democracy with a majority of unjust men. Just men and just laws seem to have a higher claim to a city than unjust men and unjust laws, so it should probably be the unjust men and their unjust laws that should have to go elsewhere. If the just men allow them to remain than it does not seem that just men should be subject to their whims.

Individually it is apparent that these three reasons given by the Laws are not very compelling, primarily due to the nature of laws in general. When many arguments are combined, no matter what their weaknesses, it is human nature to be more compelled by them than by any single argument alone. With so many reasons given and so few reasons to the contrary it is not surprising that Crito was left speechless when Socrates finished his speech. It is more surprising, but understandable, that Socrates would be convinced by his own logical fallacies. Unfortunately, only Crito was present which left Socrates forced to essentially reason out the matter himself without the benefits of dialectic. It may have been that Socrates made the right decision by not escaping but the argument for doing so in the Crito is too flawed to come to that conclusion.

Edited April 12, 2007 by badkarma556