Socrates Philosophies

Socrates is one of the Greek philosophers who lived in the fifth century, he is known as the father of philosophy. His work of philosophy mostly addressed issues on critical thinking and the importance of truth. He is said to have set the standards for all the philosophers belonging to the western world. Moreover, people who came across him were, especially the Athens were challenged to think critically and work towards seeking the knowledge that they already possessed. Socrates believed that following one's opinion is a voluntary thing, although faced by opposition from the society (Moore 173). Additionally, we are told that at the age of 75 he was tried and convicted and sentenced to death, the reason being corrupting a youth of Athens as well as trying impiety. In this essay, we would present a discussion aimed at answering the three questions, the first one being on whether Socrates would heed popular opinion about moral? Secondly, on whether Socrates accepts the fairness of the laws under which he is tried and convicted and lastly whether it would be wrong if he escaped.

According to Socrates, must one heed popular opinion about moral?

During his stay in Athens, Socrates had an important mission aimed at fostering and actualizing reforms as well as creating the logic to the laws of the society of this time. His area of focus was to impart knowledge to people, teaching them how to keep the purity and maintain the integrity and thus making souls better. This sounds good to us as readers and thrilling, but surprisingly the mission earned him a death sentence in the court proceeding following based on the popularity of jurypersons gained from the residents. He was found guilty simply by not portraying faith to the gods of the Athens nation, which led him, present new gods, thus spoiling the youth population. Historically, Athens is one of the oldest places on earth where democracy and freedom of speech were incorporated, however, following Socrates' mission his freedom was suppressed.

Nevertheless, Socrates believed that the configuration of the community relied on the conscience of each individual, moral deduction as well as freedom of speech. He also said to them that the duty of each individual was to God and the nation should thus come later, thus it was a form of intimidation for the states to suppress one’s free will to practice moral duties, this was a form of tyranny. Conversely, state officials stated that if one went against the set rules and regulations then the individual would be punished as per the law. Following this article, Plato presents Socrates as a law-abiding citizen, who stays within the authorities despite the chance to escape from the authorities, this is the highest degree of morals in the philosophy that are hard to find.

Does Socrates accept the fairness of the laws under which he was tried and convicted?

Based on Socrates' philosophies, we are sure that he is not subject to accept the justice on the laws that were used for his trial and conviction. According to Colaiaco (3) states that Athens were unfair, convicting and punishing Socrates as a criminal, yet we understand his mission was all about reaching the climax on principles based on opinions rather than religious beliefs and emotional responses. He adds that the Athenian laws restricted individuals from thinking freely and thus undermining the development of democracy (Schultz 710). It is for this reason that the Athenians terminated the life of Socrates using hemlock poison. Even though he was killed, he is a true example of an individual who demonstrated his true beliefs and upholding civic duties that led him to accept the condemnation, which leads to his death. Even though his interests were low in contrast to civic duty, Socrates was willing to meet his destiny, not because the law was fair but his principles could not allow him to go against the law. Colaiaco adds that he loved Athenians and the state as well and therefore, he could not do anything that was against the will of the people and the state at large. However, the opponents to Socrates' morals states that limitations attributed to the Athenian laws were personal opinions and thus his defense and prosecution were rational and fair. On the contrary, the prosecution’s law assumed just thoughts of Socrates in their judgment, this is because every individual expects that a fair law should not undermine any individual’s justice because of diverging opinions.

Similarly, according to Gower (14), Socrates' trial was just a short trail after the invasion of the Spartans. The latter invasion was proof to the Athenians how life would be meaningless, following the massive loss of life and property in the hand of the invaders (Collins 305). Besides, the Athenian authorities were so bitter and could be cruel to any form of opposition that emerged. Although Socrates was aware of the controversy filling the state this time he proceeded to deter with some of the laws that he felt were not worth and dragged the community back. His effort to dissent from the latter laws and regulations earned him condemnation and later a death sentence. His effort to encourage liberalism, to the Athenian authorities was a form of undermining the Athenian law on democracy. He was for the idea that the laws needed a review so that they focus on personal freedom and individual rights. Based on the review we are sure that the Athenians acted unfairly to Socrates, as their action was not well informed, undermining human rights according to the law. Also, the state goes against the real definition of democracy, as Socrates' actions were an exercise of personal democratic rights that guarantees freedom of speech and expression.

Would Socrates been wrong to escape?

Commonly the word escape in the law used to present a bad practice to evade justice. It would, therefore, wrong if Socrates escapes from facing his condemnation. Throughout the read text and philosophies it is stated that he had a strong belief in law and order, escaping would thus mean Socrates could not practice his philosophies and principles. According to Colaiaco (5), Socrates had a clear understanding that the opposing points would claim his life, and that he could not do anything that would disrespect the authorities (Kanayama 55). Conversely, the authorities failed as they were also subject to respect his ideas and abide by them instead of condemning him. Precisely, we can state that despite the high standards of morals attributed to Socrates, he was found guilty and thus convicted by the Athenian law.

His old friend Crito seems to persuade Socrates and giving him many reasons to escape, but he turns him down. He upholds his morals to the end and kept his morals and his understanding of the laws and his respect. Although Crito felt that the Athenian law was unjust to him and they would sentence him, he says that “one is never just in doing wrong, even if is for the right reasons.” There is a common clause that can be used to express this situation “two wrongs does not make right,” thus escaping from the prison would be a cause of more problems and a challenge to the weight of the Athenian law ( Marcou 1; Kanayama 55). He confesses that he does not fear death and it would be wrong to escape, and the practice would make him an unfaithful Athens citizen. Socrates was poisoned to death, leaving strong stands and philosophies to the Athens and the whole globe. These are the principles that we need to emulate in the contemporary world to ensure a smooth run on an individual’s state and the world at large.

 

Work Cited

Colaiaco, James A. Socrates against Athens: Philosophy on trial. Routledge, 2013.

Collins, Susan D. "On the Use of Greek History for Life: Josiah Ober's Athens and Paul Rahe's Sparta." The Review of Politics 81.2 (2019): 305-321.

Kanayama, Mariko. "Why Didn’t Socrates Escape?." Soul and Mind in Greek Thought. Psychological Issues in Plato and Aristotle. Springer, Cham, 2018. 55-80.

Marcou, Andreas. "Obedience and Disobedience in Plato’s Crito and the Apology: Anticipating the Democratic Turn of Civil Disobedience." The Journal of Ethics (2020): 1-21.

Moore, Christopher. "Socrates in Aristotle’s History of Philosophy." Brill's Companion to the Reception of Socrates. Brill, 2019. 173-210.

Schultz, Anne-Marie. "Socrates as Public Philosopher: A Model of Informed Democratic Engagement." The European Legacy 24.7-8 (2019): 710-723.