Help Socrates break out of jail.

[NorthernSoul]

From Answers.com



(469-399 bc) Greek philosopher. In 399 bc he was put to death by the Athenian democracy on a charge of failing to worship the city's gods, introducing new deities, and corrupting the youth. It was commonly accepted that political motives lay behind the indictment (and religion in any case was a state concern). Socrates taught that politics is an art which requires for its basis knowledge of the good; most people, however, including most contemporary politicians, do not possess this knowledge and thus cannot acquire the political art. Such views ran counter to the Athenian democratic ideal, which required that in matters of general policy each man's voice carry equal weight, and he was linked with the oligarchic faction which had briefly ruled Athens in 411 bc and 404-403 bc and which was still perceived as a danger. Its numbers also included several of his former associates. His death raises questions about the threat intellectuals may be thought to pose to the political order.

Socrates nevertheless believed that each citizen owed his state obedience in all matters which did not contradict his conscience. He consequently refused offers to help him escape from prison, giving three main reasons:

(1) The relation between state and citizen is the unequal one of parent and child: the citizen owes the state gratitude for his upbringing.
(2) By freely electing to remain in Athens and receive the benefits of her protection, he has made an implicit contract with her to abide by her laws (compare Locke on consent).
(3) To break any of the state's laws, even if they are wrongly administered, would result in a dangerous undermining of the authority of law per se.

— Angela Hobbs

What arguments could be used to convince Socrates to escape from prison?

[Harryprice]

He seems to have done a good prosecution case on himself. Destroyed by his own logic!

[Matt]

What arguments could be used to convince Socrates to escape from prison?

"Come with me if you want to live!" Well it worked on Sarah Connor

[Janot]

What arguments could be used to convince Socrates to escape from prison?Socrates was quite convinced that Athens was the place to be. He had only ever left it once, on a military campaign. If he had escaped, he would have been forced to remain an exile elsewhere, a move which from his perspective might be compared to being exiled from the UK to, say, Iran. OK, perhaps a rather extreme comparison, but moving from one city state to another was not easy.

Plato has probably idolized him, and chosen to attribute high-minded reasons to his decision effectively to commit suicide. He was 70 years old, very old. He was probably very tired of life, possibly even terminally ill (absolutely no evidence - just a possibility) and unencumbered by idiotic religious dogma about the sanctity of life, thus not prepared to suffer a potentially miserable dotage.

Under such conditions, I don't think it would be possible to find a convincing argument.

[DrS]

From Answers.com
His death raises questions about the threat intellectuals may be thought to pose to the political order.

What arguments could be used to convince Socrates to escape from prison?
I agree with Janot, and think that given Socrates' views (as presented by Plato and Xenophon in the main) it would be very difficult indeed to find an argument that would convince him.

Just a couple of small quibbles with the quote from Answers.com. In the context of C5/4 Athens, the concept of a "state" is anachronistic. Also, Socrates wasn't considered a threat so much as an intellectual, but as an oligarch in a radical democracy. :smiley:

[Jack of Kent]

From
Socrates nevertheless believed that each citizen owed his state obedience in all matters which did not contradict his conscience.

Dear Mr Socrates

Injustice is a wrong and should be avoided. One should not participate in any injustice in any capacity. Indeed, there is a moral obligation for someone participating in an injustice to act so to bring it to an end.

The circumstances of your trial and conviction indicate that there has been an injustice in your case. For you to now defer to the court and accept the unjust sentence is, I am afraid, to simply perpetuate this injustice.

That is simply not a course open to you take in this predicament.

You can bring this injustice to an end. You can and must escape.

Moreover, your escape will not undermine the law and and the sentence: both will still stand as valid as if you served the sentence. Their legitimacy is not put into question by an escape.

As Epicurus would say, it is a win-win situation: legitimacy and ending an injustice.

Best wishes

Jack of Kent

[Jack of Kent]

From
Socrates nevertheless believed that each citizen owed his state obedience in all matters which did not contradict his conscience.

Dear Mr Socrates

Injustice is a wrong and should be avoided. One should not participate in any injustice in any capacity. Indeed, there is a moral obligation for someone participating in an injustice to act so to bring it to an end.

The circumstances of your trial and conviction indicate that there has been an injustice in your case. For you to now defer to the court and accept the unjust sentence is, I am afraid, to simply perpetuate this injustice.

That is simply not a course open to you take in this predicament.

You can bring this injustice to an end. You can and must escape.

Moreover, your escape will not undermine the law and and the sentence: both will still stand as valid as if you served the sentence. Their legitimacy is not put into question by an escape.

As Epicurus would say, it is a win-win situation: legitimacy and ending an injustice.

Best wishes

Jack of Kent

[Jack of Kent]

Socrates nevertheless believed that each citizen owed his state obedience in all matters which did not contradict his conscience.

Dear Mr Socrates

Injustice is a wrong and should be avoided. One should not participate in any injustice in any capacity. Indeed, there is a moral obligation for someone participating in an injustice to act so to bring it to an end.

The circumstances of your trial and conviction indicate that there has been an injustice in your case. For you to continue to serve this unjust sentence is, I am afraid, to simply perpetuate this injustice.

That is simply not a course open to you take in this predicament. It would contradict your conscience.

You can bring this injustice to an end. You can and must escape.

Moreover, your escape will not undermine the law and and the sentence: both will still stand as valid as if you served the sentence. Their legitimacy is not put into question by an escape.

As Epicurus would say, it is a win-win situation: legitimacy and ending an injustice.

Best wishes

Jack of Kent

[Pebble]

I suspect JoK's suggestion is the most succinct and correct answer, but also that the examiners are looking for something rather more detailed.

My knowledge in this area is rudimentry.

In respect of the Locke reference I think this is the place to go:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/

Specifically:

Since governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights of the people and promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can be resisted and replaced with new governments


What really matters, therefore, is not previous acts of consent but the quality of the present government, whether it corresponds to what natural law requires. Locke does not think, for example, that walking the streets or inheriting property in a tyrannical regime means we have consented to that regime. It is thus the quality of the government, not acts of actual consent, that determine whether a government is legitimate.


A related question has to do with the extent of our obligation once consent has been given. The interpretive school influenced by Strauss emphasizes the primacy of preservation. Since the duties of natural law apply only when our preservation is not threatened (2.6), then our obligations cease in cases where our preservation is directly threatened. This has important implications if we consider a solider who is being sent on a mission where death is extremely likely. Grant points out that Locke believes a solider who deserts from such a mission (Two Treatises 2.139) is justly sentenced to death. Grant takes Locke to be claiming not only that desertion laws are legitimate in the sense that they can be blamelessly enforced (something Hobbes would grant) but that they also imply a moral obligation on the part of the soldier to give up his life for the common good (something Hobbes would deny). According to Grant, Locke thinks that our acts of consent can in fact extend to cases where living up to our commitments will risk our lives. The decision to enter political society is a permanent one for precisely this reason: the society will have to be defended and if people can revoke their consent to help protect it when attacked, the act of consent made when entering political society would be pointless since the political community would fail at the very point where it is most needed. People make a calculated decision when they enter society, and the risk of dying in combat is part of that calculation. Grant also thinks Locke recognizes a duty based on reciprocity since others risk their lives as well.


As to Socrate's theory of govt. My hazy recollection of the republic, is that he believed that the intellectuals should rule as the unenlightened failed to see anything other than that which was within the cave (that which they are intended to see), thus an unenlightened government, such as that present in Athems at the time lacked legitimacy in his eyes. Hence he was not obliged to follow their laws - not because they were incorrectly administerd, but rather because those laws were fundamentally flawed, having been enacted by the unenlightened.

[DrS]

As to Socrate's theory of govt. My hazy recollection of the republic, is that he believed that the intellectuals should rule as the unenlightened failed to see anything other than that which was within the cave (that which they are intended to see), thus an unenlightened government, such as that present in Athems at the time lacked legitimacy in his eyes. Hence he was not obliged to follow their laws - not because they were incorrectly administerd, but rather because those laws were fundamentally flawed, having been enacted by the unenlightened.
Fair recollection, but this is Plato, not Socrates. Everything we know of Socrates himself suggests that he felt an unjust verdict arrived at by the unenlightened majority was still a legitimate verdict which was binding.

Xenophon, though, implies another reason ... an old man who is simply tired of life.

[Pebble]

Fair recollection, but this is Plato, not Socrates. Everything we know of Socrates himself suggests that he felt an unjust verdict arrived at by the unenlightened majority was still a legitimate verdict which was binding.

Xenophon, though, implies another reason ... an old man who is simply tired of life.

Classics was never my strong point. I'll remember that now though.

[SimonC]

Dear Mr. Socrates,

Mssrs Bill S. Preston esq. and Theodore 'Ted' Logan are on their way, and they will explain everything when they reach you.

Party on, dudes, and be excellent to each other.

;D

[Dioptre]

Dear Mr Socrates,

Whilst you claim to be acting appropriately as a citizen of Athens, you have espoused ideals which are not compatible with the body politic of Athens. To be put to death by Athens without recanting these ideals will compound the disloyalty, as dying in defence of your ideals may give them added attention and weight.

If you are a loyal citizen, you have an obligation to recant or escape. Since you feel that your personal inability to recant is more important than your loyalty to the Athens, you must either escape or concede that you put yourself above Athens in an absolute way, thereby not being a loyal citizen at all.

If you are not a loyal citizen, why not escape?

[Harryprice]

If you got Socrates out of jail, he might have missed one of the big reasons for his posthumous fame. I'm not sure he'd thank you for that.

[NorthernSoul]

Since governments exist by the consent of the people...

When then is it ok to break the law? If we consent to the law makers being in power are we simply morally obliged to do so all of the time?

[Pebble]

When then is it ok to break the law? If we consent to the law makers being in power are we simply morally obliged to do so all of the time?

Taking the initial statement in isolation does not work:

"The decision to enter political society is a permanent one for precisely this reason: the society will have to be defended and if people can revoke their consent to help protect it when attacked, the act of consent made when entering political society would be pointless since the political community would fail at the very point where it is most needed."