Socrates Should Stay In Jail Critical Thinking

Socrates was, and still is, considered to be one of the most profound contributors to human philosophy that has ever lived. In the end, he was, if anything, a bit progressive for his time. This was reflected in the fact that he introduced many new thoughts and ideologies that ran counter to culture at the time. As such, he was eventually arrested, placed on trial, and set for execution. With many supporters around the region, Socrates likely could have gotten free somehow. This could have perhaps took place via an escape, but he chose no such way out. As is common with Socrates, his argument was based on his own teachings. His reasoning can be evaluated through an examination of the logos, pathos, and ethos of his respective sentiments.
As mentioned, the prevailing mindset is that Socrates could have found a way to escape from prison, either on his own accord or with the assistance of his many supporters in the region. In the end, however, he contended that the consequences of escaping from jail would be worse than staying. It was also noted in Crito, “Will you then flee from well-ordered cities and virtuous men?” This was actually a powerful statement, as Socrates was in prison awaiting his execution, so it is difficult to fathom how anything could be worse than that.
As logos is an appeal to the logic pervasive throughout society, the first premise is valid considering the mindset of the day. Government formed the basis for community, and the institution was developed to provide law and order to all of the citizenry. In exchange for this privilege, logic would dictate that individuals within the community owed it to their government to be disobedient. Where such logic becomes muddied, however, is when the government performs an unjust action against an individual or group within society. It was reflected in Crito, “Make your mind up then, or rather have your mind already made up, for the time of deliberation is over and there is only one thing to be done.” In this situation, Socrates felt that one things was to obey the government. In such a case, logic would be equally as strong in contended that obedience to such a government is no longer an obligation.
For the second premise, the logos is far from clear. Regardless of the consequences of the other action (escaping from prison in this case), it is hard to imagine a situation where such consequences would be greater than death. Simple logic would tell us that this simply couldn’t be. In the case of Socrates, however, he is likely referring to the inner turmoil that he would be forced to live with if he allowed for his escape from prison. It would go against his fundamental beliefs in the rights of government, and to live with that would be worse than a quick death. In this sense, logic would certainly win out.
Pathos refers to an emotional appeal. To that end, both of these arguments are quite strong and enduring. Even in prison, Socrates expressed his support for the government and for individual liberty and freedom. He remarks, “and injure that principle in us which may be assumed to be improved by justice and deteriorated by injustice; is there not such a principle?” Understandably, many members of the community must have been upset at his imprisonment, and they were equally troubled about his devotion to a government that had committed so many perceived injustices towards him. In the end, he issues a passionate and emotional plea on both accounts to both his supporters and detractors. He seemed to be advocating a position that the very cultural components of government and individual liberty that had made Greece so great should continue to endure long after he is gone. This meant that he had to express his obedience to the government, no matter what the cost, even at the risk of this life. Ultimately, even the potential offer of escape could not cause Socrates to waiver in this regard, and that perhaps is why he is still so highly regarded within the academic and philosophical community even today.
The ethos of any given argument refers directly to the ethics involved. In the first case, it is certainly ethical to make the point that the government is owed our obedience, but at the same time, individuals should expect an ethically responsible government in return as well. In addition, when looking at the second premise, one of the fundamental principles upon which the judicial system in a democratic system is based it that the process must be trusted and the verdict respected. Socrates reflects in Crito, “If acting under the advice of men who have no understanding, we destroy that which is improved by health and deteriorated by disease – when that has been destroyed, would life be worth living?” The argument is that to believe otherwise will distort the entire system and render the process useless. As such, if the government found Socrates guilty of an offense, and the sentence imposed was death, then Socrates is ethically bound to accept that verdict and punishment. Following through on this was an obligation that Socrates felt he was ethically obligated to do. On the first account, however, it is hard to see how someone is ethically bound to a government that was going counter to the very individual liberties and freedoms that Greek society has based its culture on. These two diametrically opposed arguments must have caused great angst and conflict leading up to Socrates making the choice to simply accept the will of the government, thereby resigning himself to his eventual fate.
Reflecting on one’s arguments related to logos, ethos, and pathos is rarely an easy endeavor. Much inner turmoil and debate within the community is likely to take place before any such decision can be made. Even then, as this case with Socrates demonstrates, there will almost certainly be much disagreement with the outcome, no matter how well articulated or reasoned the argument might be. In this case, the reasoned argument could be made that Socrates was working to preserve his legacy. If he were to escape from prison, for example, it could very well sour his reputation for generations to come. If that were to happen, then he must have felt that all he work for in his life, and his many writing and philosophical contentions, would have been for naught. He simply could not permit that to happen. As a result, he was willing to accept the punishment handed down, even though it resulted in death. Was the punishment unjust? It is probably not wise nor fair for today’s modern society to make such a judgment call as such issues are relevant to the time frame involved. The community that Socrates lived in was vastly different that the shape society has taken today, so one must consider the arguments made from a logo, ethos, and pathos perspective as being correct and proper in his eyes. In the end, that is really all that matters.