Socrates is a classical Greek philosopher, one of the founders of Western philosophy and at the same time he is frequently called an enigmatic figure. He is supposed to be born in 469 BC and die in 399 BC. Still some experts claim Socrates was a fictional character, others gather evidence there was no need creating him independently, as he made a serious contribution to world philosophy. Socrates considered subjecting our moral beliefs to through logical check. According to him, unexamined life is not worth living.
Socrates organized and participated in public arguments, he scrutinized a person’s beliefs due to a number of questions directed towards revealing his interlocutor’s nature. Consequently, he undermined people’s moral superiority irrespectively of their rank either in politics or religion. He spoke with people who had reputation of wisdom and found out they were not really wise, in his speech Socrates mentioned that in contrast to such wise men, he neither knew nor thought that he knew. At the age of seventy a law-obedient citizen of Athens was accused of the capital crime of corrupting the youth with his teachings, as well as professing his own divinities but not the gods of the city. Five hundred jurors found him guilty and sentenced to death by poison. He was considered to be a threat to established institutions of Athens. At present it seems evident that Socrates had a chance to refute the charges against him by undermining the city authorities’ power over religious matters.

Actually, there are some controversial points of Socrates’ argument which he makes against Crito, but what is really of great importance is the deliberate choice of the philosopher. It has been widely argued if Socrates made a right choice by refusing to exile or mitigate his punishment. It is somehow understandable why under the conditions of “Athenian democracy” he could not strongly object to the well-established order. Generally, Socrates’ opposition to democracy is often declaimed, and it causes philosophical debates. Some experts suppose that Socrates could not support government that did not conform to his ideal of perfect republic, the Athenian government was far from it.
During the last years of the philosopher’s life, Athens turned into “continual flux”, democracy was overthrown by the Thirty Tyrants. Generally, the Laws of the fourth century BC Athens lacked the kind of written in exemption and, putting it mildly, they were imperfect in the contemporary point of view. But still Socrates gave reasons why he preferred to take poison and refused to pursue his philosophical teachings spreading. But judging by his actions and utterances Socrates considered the rule of the Thirty Tyrants less legitimate than the senate that sentenced the philosopher to death.
To analyze the fatal decision which could have been avoided one needs to try to penetrate into the atmosphere and consider Socrates’ thoughts before the verdict was read out and mull over his speech in front of the Athenians.
According to contemporary scholars, it was not a right choice to accept the punishment and go quietly without fighting for justice. Socrates’ delusion was in absolute consent with the sentence, as he did not question the social contract he conducted with the state, the Law of Athens. Perhaps, he should not have taken the justice of the verdict as a gospel truth. As Saint Augustine keenly noticed, an unjust law is no law at all. According to contemporary views, he could have appealed against the senate’s decision (Southmayd). But this point was contrary to what he believed and defended in his teachings.
Socrates appeared in the court of law for the first time in life, so in his speech he wanted others to regard him as a stranger as if he were a man, whom they would excuse if he spoke in native tongue. Accused of being an evil-doer searching into things under the earth and in heaven, he was formally given time to justify himself. In his speech, Socrates claimed he had no knowledge of the kind Callias, the son of Hipponieus, had. If the philosopher had had it, he would have been proud and conceited. Socrates once again raised the issue of wisdom, the majority of people who were supposed to be wise were foolish in reality, disclosing them Socrates made enemies. Before his untimely death the philosopher once again touched upon the eternal questions of good and evil, life and death. According to him since no one knew whether death was the greatest evil or the greatest good, he stated he advocated no evil in his teachings; he just pursued his mission and never demanded money for what he did.
Socrates also talked of the importance of appropriate behavior in the situation and demanded that the judge acted according to the laws not according to his own pleasure. Socrates could not help but express his lifelong position: “Do not require me to do what I consider dishonorable and impious and wrong, especially now, when I am being tried for impiety on the indictment of Meletus”. Here lies the crux of his viewpoint and of these principles, according to which he lived and acted. Meletus proposed death as the penalty and Socrates noticed that if there had been the same law in Athens as in other cities, a capital cause would not have been decided in one day and he could have convinced the audience and justified himself. It seems, he is on the beam, but then he emphasizes that exile would be disobedience to a divine command and, moreover, if his citizens do not endure his discourses and words, it would be odious to continue philosophizing. Considering the point of the greatest good, Socrates said: “I would rather die having spoken after my manner, than speak in your manner and live” (Socrates). Nothing could make him to use every way of escaping death. The difficulty lies not in avoiding death as it is, but in avoiding unrighteousness which is faster than death. He thought that he had to abide his award, as it was to be regarded as fated. Socrates believed that killing men could not result in the accusers’ lives censuring. And vice versa, death is anyway a gain for Socrates. Either it is a state of nothingness or unconsciousness or a journey to another place, no evil can happen to a good man in life as well as after death.
Summing up Socrates’ argument, one may define that according to him, lawbreaking was unjust, laws were just, the concrete laws of Athens were obviously just and could not be questioned, all finally pronounced decisions of the court had to be carried out and disrespect of judicial decisions could result in the destruction of laws. Hence, escape from prison or exile is unjust and morally acceptable. According to Kyle Dingman’s Obedience to the State in the Apology and the Crito, Socrates was devoted to two principles which he spoke about in the course of the Crito. The first one is “when one has come to a just agreement with another, one should fulfill it” (Dingman), the second one may be formulated the following way: “When one has freely lived their whole life in the city of Athens, one implicitly and justly agrees to either persuade the state to adopt one’s own point of view or obey the orders of the state” (Dingman). Crito tries to persuade Socrates that his failure to escape will be a sign of cheapness on the part of his friends, moreover, he will leave his children with no father. But the philosopher dismisses the reasons of Crito, as he is said to appeal to wrong things. In return Socrates states that escape is unjust and gives three main reasons to support the thesis. The first one lies in the fact that by escaping Socrates does injury to the Laws. Besides, Socrates owes fealty to the state above all others. He has to obey its laws as his duty to the state is similar to the duty of a son to his father and even stronger. The philosopher believes he has no right to retaliate against Athens. The third reason against escaping is a social contract between the state and an individual, Socrates in particular. According to the thinker, if he fails his duty to persuade-or-obey, then he deserves punishment (Dingman). According to Socrates, disobedience to the state will always be regarded as a violation of the citizen agreement; hence, the acts of disobedience are virtually impossible.
To highlight and analyze Socrates’ views more thoroughly to read the reasons of his last fatal decision and make sure it could have been avoided for the benefit of the whole state let alone other countries, it is appropriate to consider other outstanding thinkers’ attitude towards the situation Socrates found himself and their possible reaction to the events described above.
As for a prominent Chinese thinker and the founder of the Ru School of the Chinese thought Confucius, he knew only one form of government which was the traditional monarchy, typical for his native country where the king exercised absolute power and ruled by the right Divine. The ruler was called from Heaven to enlighten people by wise laws and lead them to goodness. The value of good example of the king is emphasized in Confucius’ teachings. Socrates in this case blindly obeyed the authority of court and also believed they were just and worth obeying. It seems Socrates would agree to Confucius’ thought: “If the people be led by laws, and uniformity among them be sought by punishments, they will try to escape punishment and have no sense of shame. If they are led by virtue, and uniformity sought among them through the practice of ritual propriety, they will possess a sense of shame and come to you of their own accord” (Confucius). Both Confucius and Socrates advocate legalistic methods of ruling the state and believed in the power of virtue. Still Socrates did not accept the Chinese philosopher’s idea that sometimes the cause of injustice may be sought in the unworthy king and his unprincipled ministers. Socrates could not admit that the laws could not have been absolutely just and the jurors could not have been perfectly objective.
As for Buddhism, which tells of the Eightfold Way meaning right belief, right thought, right behavior, right speech, right effort, right occupation, right attentiveness, right meditation. Buddhists are in search for truth, so each individual should find his or her own path of enlightenment. They consider the Middle Way to be the Noble Path. According to Buddhism in the world there are three wrong viewpoints, all human experience is based on destiny, everything is created by God, everything happens occasionally. Hence, we may draw a conclusion that Buddhists would not put up with their destiny of untimely death. According to the Eightfold Way one should abstain from destroying life. Though Socrates accepted some points of the Eightfold Way such as abstaining from immorality, falsehood, resolving to free thoughts of delusion, anger, etc. he did not abstain from destroying his own life by putting up with death as something that is just and unquestionable. They most likely would not support Socrates who was sure he had to obey the laws. If he obeyed the laws, it was “good” – he was a “good person” according to the ethical norms of the state. But Buddhism ethics does not directly tell what one should or should not do. Still as well as Socrates did, Buddhists actually put the same sense into death, considering it to be a key that unlocks the mystery of life, on understanding death, life and its purpose is understood.
As for Chuang Tzu, a Chinese philosopher opposing to the ideas of Mo Tzu and Confucius, he argued that the processes of nature unify all things, so humanity should live at one with nature. He supposed that one could do more by doing nothing. AS well as the majority of other philosophers including Socrates, Chuang Tzu accentuated that everything is in constant flux and agreed that the life leads to death. Unlike Socrates, he supposed there was no use telling what is good and what is bad, as according to him as nature instincts prevailed on the Earth, there were no distinctions of good and bad men. And, generally, he was skeptical about the search for truth, as the thinker supposed that life is limited, hence, the amount of things to know is also limited, so applying to limited in search of the unlimited is foolish. According to Rothbard, Chuang Tzu was the world’s first anarchist, thinking that the world must not be governed, there should be the spontaneous order on the Earth. Consequently, Chuang Tzu would not support the law-obedient citizen Socrates.
It is quite obvious that the humanity needs the answer to the question: is it right to act in one’s own best interest or to obey the state, the common rules and accepted norms? A contemporary individual is most likely to believe that preserving life is by far the most important and cannot be but justified, so one should act in his or her own interests. But Socrates did not agree to holding his tongue in ever-changing exile or lying in prison waiting for the fine to be paid for him. Socrates was right judging about the ever-changing world and due to the changes that occur in modern life it gives birth to new ideas and alters the attitude to different events. According to R. E. Allen’s principle, for instance, Socrates’ conceptions of the moral duties differ considerably from contemporary conceptions of the same thing. According to him, Socrates had no obligations to submit himself to death prior to an agreement, as submitting oneself to death is itself unjust.
The thinker could consider the agreement unjust as the means of coming to such an agreement were unjust. Instead Socrates drank the poison as if it was liberation to Gods. All this is the result of the conviction that breaking out of poison would be setting a poor example of what justice is. But the philosopher failed to distinguish between substantial and procedural justice. So, in my opinion, he could criticize the laws of Athens and offer some moral reason for rejection the law and appealing to the court, as there always exists the possibility of moral criticism of laws. Thomas Aquinas distinguished between man-made and natural laws, the former may be argued about and there could not be any automatic moral obligation to obey them implicitly.
If the laws of Athens were not just and if Socrates demonstrated their moral deficiency, he would have moral right to reject the verdict, so his escape would not be considered as unjust. Socrates believed that justice is transmitted from the law into judicial decisions, but it is not obligatory so. There should be traced the difference between the justice of laws and the justice of judicial proceedings.
Socrates’ delusion that disrespect of unjust verdicts leads to anarchy and laws’ destruction deprived him of an opportunity to carry out his mission and making a larger impact on Athens. The philosopher could also change the way the majority of people thought, but unfortunately, he was not much concerned about it. That is why the world untimely lost an intellect of the age.

Works Cited
Southmayd, Alex. Did Socrates make the right choice? 2008. 30 January 2009.
Dingman, Kyle. Obedience to the state in the Apology and the Crito. Philosophy Journal. 30 January 2009
Socrates. Authors born between 500 and 400 BCE. 2000. 29 January 2009
Buddha. Buddhism. 1999. 29 January 2009

Custom essay writing service Essay-911.com. Buy essays online!