was it more important for socrates to die for his soul rather than fulfill his obligations to his children?

Answer 1

There's a lot more on the scales than just his soul or his children. Socrates allows himself to be executed because of integrity, loyalty to the state, justice, and indeed for the health of the state itself. Never mistake his not resorting to criminal behaviour for suicide!

Frankly, I'm not sure that Socrates could even really see his death as quite the injustice that others might. After all, he had no reason to fear death - he was confident in his own virtue and belief. To a certain extent whether he was innocent or guilty didn't matter too much. But let's look at the larger picture (as perhaps he might have):

If was was wrongly convicted, then it means that he was a good man. He was providing valuable services to society, he was a good model for children, and so on. By executing him, the state will have done a wrong but - by losing his services - they will have already punished themselves for it.

On the other hand, if he was rightly convicted and was unknowingly corrupting the youth, then his punishment was harsh, but at least it serves the good of the state. And for a person who loves the state, what is good for the state is also good for them. Similarly, if he is a corruptor of the youth, it's probably a really good thing that he's not around his own youths, lest they too be corrupted. Win-win.

If he violates all these prinicples to escape, or twists the fairness of the judicial system to serve his own ends, then he is only proving that the state would be right to execute him. His children will have the poorest of role models. And he will, perhaps, live a life of much less satisfaction, knowing the injustice can easily be accomplished and that he falls far short of his own ideals.

Looking at it this way, the only way Socrates or his children can lose is if he's pushed to desperate, uncharacteristic behaviour. Fortunately for all, whether he was guilty or not, he resisted that urge. May we all be so brave.

Answer 2

Good question. And really it is a dilema that applies to anyone and everyone. The question of whether or not one's children are worth dying for has been answered with an emphatic yes, whether children are worth living for also with a yes, but also that yes has been aplied to ones beliefs. When the two come into conflict however which is more important?... The best answer I can give is this. When you believe in something with all of your heart and soul, and believe it will benefit not only those you love but everyone else does the idea not benefit your children? In that case I would say that if something benefits a society that ones children are in, then making the choice to die for it, in a way, also directly benefits ones children.

Answer 3

No, I don't think so. He was in a situation where he had two options, and they were both unethical in some way. Escaping from jail would have been unethical, but allowing his execution to take place, thereby robbing his children of their father, was also unethical.

In this case, his execution was unjust, so faced with two unethical options, he ought to have done the one that would be most just. His escape would have been unethical for the reasons he expounded to all of the friends who tried to help him escape, but at least he would have acted in accordance with justice. His execution was the greater of the two evils.

Answer 4

Wow wat a moving question but if he did not die then people would not be so fascinated with wat his thoughts where
also by dieing he fulfilled his obligations to his children by empowering them to believe wat they want to believe