|
|
In 399 BCE, Socrates was executed unjustly. Because of his ability to make people realize how little they truly know charges were brought against Socrates stating that he worshipped false gods and corrupted the youth of Athens. Found guilty, he was forced to drink hemlock and die for his actions. But the charges were completely heinous. In hindsight this is a accepted and widely known. But this travesity is not what I am raning about. No, I am ranting about Socrates' choice not to escape his fate. You see, because of Socrates knew some powerful people he was offered the chance to escape execution and live in another city where he would be safe. This offer was turned down flat out by Socrates. Why? Because Socrates held the belief that when you lived in a city you accept all laws and rulings by that city. And if one were to go against this agreement you would set a precedent and then all people would begin to not follow the laws of the city, even if the law or ruling was known to be false. Socrates believed the integrity of the state was more important than saving himself. (As a side note, all of this can be found in Plato's dialogue, "Crito") Is this a rational course of action to take? Should one accept unjust laws and rulings? I would say no. When Socrates said that living in a state (which is the same as city in ancient Greece since they had city-states) you accepted the laws of that state he never mentioned any provision of those laws be followed morally. I believe that when you live in a state you do agree to the laws of that state, but only so long as they are morally applied. As in Socrates' case, those laws were not morally applied, and thus I believe Socrates should have escaped. But how does one know when a law has been immorally applied? That, of course, is a very difficult question. Without a basic universal system of ethics there is no real way to concretely know objectively that an immoral application of a law has taken place. One would have to just use their own judgement on whether something was just or not. This also brings up the issue of social contract ethics. What right does the state have in persuing you if you try to escape? I will not get into this now since this is a large topic, but depending on the view on social contract ethics one could say that the state has every right to persue you and recapture you. Others would say that they don't since they broke their social contract with you the instant they immorally applied their own laws. As always, there is no concrete answer. |