POLITICAL SCIENCE 13 Mr Strong; Ms Chowdhury, My. Haines; Mr. Lucas
Sample Answers, Midterm, PS 13 Fall 2011
Below is an example of an A answer. It is coherent, makes a point, argues for that point. It is well written and in good English. There are other possible arguments – the question is if one supports them.
Section One:
Crito approaches Socrates with the proposition to escape following the death sentence. In spite of readily available money, safe passage, and a secure haven in which he could retire, Socrates says no. Crito retorts with social obligations to his friends and family—chiefly his sons—but to no avail.
Ultimately, Socrates explains to Crito that after many years of fruitfully enjoying all Athens had to offer, it would be unjust to disregard his sentence and to flee. The years of discourse on principles of wisdom, truth, and justice would be dissolved by that one act.
Moreover, he previously had the option for exile, but he rejected it because it would have been at the cost of his role in society, in which he served at the behest of the gods. Socrates further explains to Crito that while he may escape, not even Thessaly could provide him a suitable quality of life.
Residing, and growing and raising children—according to Socrates—enacts an implied agreement between the citizen and the state. While his sentence may be unjust, it was lawful. Therefore, he must abide by the legality because it is the right course of action. In sum, Socrates feels it is wholly unacceptable to escape and flee.
Socrates also makes a good argument when he says that he would be seen as suspect in other law-abiding cities, and as a sort of hero in those places where laws have little power. This last case is particularly powerful because it would mean that Socrates would be congratulated and feted for precisely that which is the most shameful aberration from his normal internal consistency. The one argument which may tip the balance in favor of Socrates’ decision, is his comment on the fact that, in escaping, he would only buy himself a few years of life, due to his advanced age. This particular argument reduces the benefit of freedom, while doing nothing for the significant cost to Socrates’ belief in remaining consistent, and so, in the end, what Socrates says is highly persuasive.
Section Two:
My evaluation of his choice is that is was correct for someone who had his mindset. If you believe, as Socrates did, in the model of Athenian justice, then one would be corrupting one’s principles in escaping. Also, if one did not fear death—as Socrates did not—the prospect of it as a punishment is not grave.
Socrates makes a compelling argument for his choice to remain in Athens and die. His reasons are persuasive because they speak to the idea that there is a greater good than the personal material good. However, I am not certain I would be able to make a similar choice in such a situation, so I cannot say that Socrates’ arguments are absolutely convincing. While they are powerful in terms of the idea of maintaining internal consistency with one’s beliefs and principles, Socrates’ decision does not necessarily lead to the greater good or a more correct justice.
The changing numbers of the majority between the verdict and the sentencing in the Apology after Socrates’ taunting words would have convinced me that this form of justice was imperfect, as it was subject to personal bias and partiality. It would therefore be unable to mete out capital punishment, a sentence best left to the judgments of an infallible God and not those of humans.
Unlike Socrates I do fear death and what lies beyond it. I would therefore evade the sentence if given the chance that Socrates had. In so doing, I would not be violating any moral principles that I have.
Section Three:
A. The same reasoning can explain the effects of the concentration camp on certain inmates, who internalize the idea of camp and become new people. In the same way that Socrates was raised and molded by Athens, these prisoners were broken down mentally and emotionally by the camp, and then built back up into new people over time. After losing their own identities, they develop new ones under the influence of the camp.
This is also like a child being raised by a family. Because the prisoners have been reduced to functioning with a helplessness and childishness, the camp becomes like a parent to them. If the survive. These prisoners grow up under the influence and ideas of the camp, and many accept the ideas of the camp as their own. The camp has raised them.
Now, just like how Socrates owed who he was to the city of Athens, these prisoners owed their existence of their new selves to the camp, and felt a strange familial connection to their captors. They no longer thought about escape or rebellion, but simply accepted the authority of the parental camp leadership.
B. It is for many of the same reasons that Rubashov eventually agrees to confess. He also speaks of the idea that everything must be thought through it its rational conclusion. For Rubashov, who has spent his entire life immersed in the ideas of Marxism and in the formation of the USSR, the idea of maintaining consistency with the Party is similar to Socrates’ need to maintain consistency in his words and actions. Through the course of his imprisonment and interrogation, Rubashov comes to understand that the doubts he had been having about the direction in which the Party had been going were contradictory to his belief in the Communist Revolution. This meant that dying in silence or going rogue during the public trial would be seen as an ideological split in the Communist Party in the USSR, and therefore as a possibly fatal weakness at a time when the USSR had many enemies, few allies, and could afford to show no weakness. Rubashov understands that to maintain the authority of the Party, he must confess, in the same way as Socrates understands that in order to maintain the authority of the Athenian state, he must remain in Athens and submit to death.