Socrates: Should It In The Right To Escape?

This will display he will avoid the penalty of the law to his convenience when he had followed it for his entire time in Athens, which will further many people’s belief of his bad character. However, the Athenian justice system was flawed. It is not right for Socrates to accept his death as his punishment when many people did not comply with the requirements of the jury to uphold the law because they decided to convict an innocent man to his death with no strong evidence needed. The laws are established with the sole purpose to establish justice. Instead of establishing justice, many people in the trial let their personal judgments of Socrates establish him as the criminal when he was innocent.

He also makes it clear that citizens should always do what is considered to be “just”. Crito, along with others, believe that Socrates would be morally wrong for not trying to escape. Crito attempts to persuade Socrates that he should escape out of prison and not doing so is “unjust” because it means he will be leaving his children behind and siding with the unjust people who have put him in jail. Socrates then proceeds to justify his reasons for not escaping by stating that it would be breaking the Laws, which he considers to be an “unjust” thing to do. Therefore, Socrates would rather abide by the Laws than go against the people and escape.

To conclude, Socrates in some peoples eyes may seem that the right thing for him to do is to escape and save his own life, even though he would be ricking the the lives of his friends and family and inevitably be caught later on down the road the face once again the same situation. In my opinion, Socrates made the right decision. Staying imprisioned and accepting his fate not only protects the life of other but also stands by his beliefs of not repaying a wrong action with a wrong action. Socrates sticking by his choice to follow the path God intended him, shows how wise he truly is and for that I believe he has made the right choice and I agree with

Francis follows this pattern, thinking that because he’d done something wrong (leaving his family), he does not deserve to go back home. He reasons that staying away would be the best, and further, the right thing to do. Francis seems to have a judgmental eye as well, determining that the person who hit his friend, Rudy, in the head should also be prosecuted. Francis delivers a blow to the man. Most likely, the blow led to the raider’s death.

In Plato’s Crito, we see that he tries to point out the problem of political obligations of the citizen by using the relationship between Socrates and Crito and how they have different views on these obligations. As known, Plato portrays Socrates as a model citizen. Socrates has just been sentenced to death, but is sent to jail as he awaits his fatal fate. Socrates believes in the commitment to civic obligations and the rule of law and is willing to stand by his beliefs, even if he has to stay in jail and even if he will be in danger of being put to death. His friend Crito tries to talk him into attempting to escape the jail, by talking about voluntary injustice, talkina about how citizens regard the rule of law as just but they have the will to commit injustices.

If Mr. Bucket, the attorney, used duty-based ethics he would not bride the judge in order to win the case for his client. Under the religious ethical standard he would not pay the judge off because even though the act may seem fair the act is not justifiable and is immoral. This would be just like Robin Hood who is still seen as a theif eventhough he was redistrubution the wealth to those who needed it more. Furthermore, Bucket would also say no because of kantian ethics. To use this form of ethics one must ask, if everyone bribed the judge to win their case how would it affect our justice system?

Arguably, it seems Equality wouldn’t have the desire to punish others in this new society (after all he faced the punishment himself, didn’t he?). However, it is implied that he wouldn’t want to have any true barriers between his city and others, just like the city he escaped from. He explains that people will soon be drawn to and from it over time, which readers could assume is without threats within his city. “And it will become the heart of the earth, lost and hidden at first, but beating, beating louder each day. And word

Richard has always felt the unjust of race, and has felt how segregation made it hard for him to have a future. But when he gets a chance to get revenge on the whites, he refuses when he thinks ”Who wanted to look them straight in the face, who wanted to walk and act like a man. (200)” Stealing went against his morals of the right way to succeed and would not help the community appearance to the whites. The community as a whole is very religous but Richard does not share these beliefs, even with the persistence of his friends and family he says ”Mama, I don't feel a thing. (155)” This caused his friends to beg him, but in face of rejection they leave him alone.

He does not think it is right to help take away slaves from people that he doesn't even know. To turn Jim in for these reasons would be the influence of society on Huck. Huck's decision on this marks another major step in Huck's moral maturation, because he decides not to turn in Jim on his own and adds another moral that he made and no one told him. This is the first time he makes a decision all on his own. Both this incident and the Wilkes Scheme represent Huck's ultimate realization and rejection of society.

By escaping from the prison, Socrates understands that he would be committing an evil act which would in no way remedy the wrong that was done to him. Ultimately, Socrates declares that evil must not be overcome with evil but with good. According to Socrates, there are no ways in which wrongdoing is considered “good and honorable.” Socrates lives his life based on the beliefs that to live a good and honorable life one must obey his morals. Escaping from the prison to Socrates represents a dishonorable act because he is going against his teachings and the Laws of Athens. The “good life” to Socrates is being able to ask questions and acquire knowledge, based on the understanding that he “knows nothing.” Socrates advices Crito to only listen to the opinions of those who understand the difference between “just” and “unjust” because only then will he understand why it would be wrong of Socrates to escape or “willingly do wrong”.

Plato challenges an individual to follow his conscience. Socrates is challenged with facing death or escaping and relocating to a new area where others will not know of his prior sentence. It is a decision of whether to follow your conscience and do what you consider the right thing to do or to disregard the issue and feel guilty about it for the rest of your life. In the end, Socrates feels he must see the sentence out even if it means death but he is sending a message to his family that he is not above any laws…there is a reason for laws and others must be willing to abide by those laws otherwise there could be mass chaos to follow (Plato, Crito, n.d.). In today’s world, we have the judicial system that determines whether an individual is found guilty of breaking any laws.