# data[].attributes.body
If King John had ruled Babylon, the rebels wouldn't have had so much over him. If John ruled in Athens, there would a democractic election. The rebels would not have wanted to change the laws because they where voted in and liked by more people.

# data[].attributes.body
If John had been king in Babylon or Athens I think there would be more democracy and fairness throughout his kingdom. Because those cultures were more civil and fair to all. He would also be influenced by the philosophers that lived there, persuading him to do right.

# data[].attributes.body
3. The Magna Carta would have been less about the  fair treatment if John had been the king of Babylon instead and it would have been less restricting to the king and his role, in Athens it may never have been a thing because of the democratic views of the Athenians.

# data[].attributes.body
3) If King John had ruled Babylon, the barons or rebels wouldn't have much power over him because he would be believed to be chosen by the gods, but we believe that the rebels would fight for more separation of the church and the law and less harsh punishments for minimal crimes. If King John ruled in Athens, he would have to be elected in the democratic-like government. We think that the rebels wouldn't want to change much of the laws but possibly push themselves forward to act as the Athenian Assembly and keep the just rulings and due process that is in the original Magna Carta.

# data[].attributes.body
2. Rebellion is not always the only way to change the unfair situation, Socrates thinks that it is not the only way, Socrates would say solve your own problems whereas Hammarabi would say it is not the only way to solve an unfair situation aswell but he would say you cannot do anything because the gods chose your leaders and decides what happens in your life

# data[].attributes.body
#1. Socrates would tell the rebel barons that they were being disrespectful towards their country and that they should compromise with their country.

#2. Rebellion is not the only way to change an unfair situation but it is a great way to bring attention to that situation. Socrates would most likely agree that rebellion is not the only way because he did not rebel while Hammurabi might not agree because he believed in more conflict

#3.  If John was king of Babylon the Magna Carta would have focused more on religion, land, and equality, and less on courts and judicial systems. In Athens the Magna Carta may have issued a vote and enforced the judicial system.

# data[].attributes.body
Socrates would say that the rebel barons need to to follow the kings rules. Since there are rules they need to be followed.

# data[].attributes.body
Question #3:
In Athens, it would not have gotten to the point where the people would want to overthrow him because they were a democracy and would have not elected him.

In Babylon, he would not have been overthrown because they people would respect his decisions thinking he was chosen by God and was doing his duty.

# data[].attributes.body
Rebellion is not the only way to change a unfair situtation but it is a good way. This is because if there is more conflict more people will actually pay attention.

# data[].attributes.body
Question 3
The Magna Carta would be different if John was the King of Babylon, of Athens, because there would be less harsh punishments and the Rebel Barons might have pushed separation of church and law.

# data[].attributes.body
Socrates would agree because he didn't rebel himself and was going to be killed regardless. Hammurabi could go both ways because its dependent on the situation.

# data[].attributes.body
Re

# data[].attributes.body
No, rebellion is unnecessary and needless to change an unfair situation. I think protest is a good way but rebellion is too much. I think Socrates would agree, but Hammurabi seems more violent and he would be the leader of a rebellion

# data[].attributes.body
1. Socrates would tell that the Rebel Barons that they are not above the law and the court and they have no right to challenge and or go above the law. And that they should think about the consequences on everything that they do before they do it.

# data[].attributes.headline
If jon had been king then there would be more democracy and less dictatorship. 

# data[].attributes.subject
If jon had been king then there would be more democracy and less dictatorship. 

# data[].attributes.body
1) We believe that Socrates would be proud and agree with the barons push for a fair and just government. He would agree with their cause and tell them that they must take responsibility in setting up their new government and obey the laws of their country and set them up with justice. In clause 20, the Magna Carta states that punishments for violations of the law is proportional to the serious offence thus establishing the standard of fairness.

2) We believe that Socrates would value a discussion of some sort to change a situation and would not resort to a violent rebellion because he values the law. Hammurabi would follow the "eye for an eye" mentality and use his power and divine right to change a situation in order to better himself.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Socrates would agree with them because they are striving for all to be viewed as equal in society. Socrates wanted equality with a fair and just economy just like the rebel barons.

2. No, because one can use the process of law to fix an unfair situation. Socrates would not agree with a rebellion because he was never for conflict. He said to Crito that if a man harms you never harm him back violently. Hammurabi would agree with rebellion because he was a very violent man and looked at the situation as eye for eye.

3. If John had been king of Babylon, many would look up to him as chosen by the Gods, meaning he has a lot of power. If he was king of Athens, there would not be many changes because the he could not of had too much power. Although, human civil rights and the fairness for all could have been implemented into society earlier in history.

# data[].attributes.body
Question 1.
Socrates would say that it is wrong to rebel and that the rebel barons should serve their duties and follow the laws.

# data[].attributes.body
Question #2:
I think that Socrates would tell them that by finding the root of the problem they could find a logical way to lay out their negotiation with King John instead of a rebellion where Hammurabi would act more like Robin Hood and act without a lot of thought or planning to make things equal again.

# data[].attributes.body
Socrates would not approve of the way the rebel barons were treating King John. To stay they should have supported him and the way he ruled because of the "unspoken agreement". If they did not want to be ruled by him they should have left and lived under different power.

# data[].attributes.body
1.Socrates would disagree because socrates obeys and follows the law even if it is bad.
2.No beacause you don't have to rebel to change and unfair situation you can talk it out or settle it a diffrent way.Socrates would agree because he thinks in more peaceful ways. Hammurabi would disagree because he has a more cruel style.
3.If the Magna Carta was introduced earlier human rights would have been put into place earlier and the slaves situation and others could've been dif

# data[].attributes.body
1. Socrates would praise the rebel barons for taking a stand against a situation that defied their morals or values. In Crito, Socrates believed he could could not defy the laws because he had found no issue with them his entire life, so he would support them because they are taking action against new laws that are unjust for all people.
2. In many cases rebellion is the best way to change a situation because rebellion doesn't mean violence. It means taking a stand against an unjust party to force them to take action or address an issue. Socrates would agree because rebellion means standing up for your values. Hammurabi would disagree because rebellion to him means defying someone who's power is God-given.
3. If John had been the king of Babylon there might not have been a Magna Cart because the people would abide by the laws that they believed were given by God. If John had been the king of Athens, the Magna Carta would probably have had less focus on religion or royal judges, with more of a focus on equal process of law and a jury of one's peers.

# data[].attributes.body
Question #1
Socrates would say that they need to be loyal to the King and his rules. When Socrates had an opportunity to escape from jail he asked himself if it was good or bad. I think  that is what he would say to the rebel barons. How are you going to benefit from this?
Question #2
Socrates would try and negotiate different laws and fix the situation with peace. Hammurabi would have more of an eye for an eye  approach.  He would believe that the rebels got to do whatever the king did to them.
Question #3
If John was the king of Athens it wouldn't have gotten to the point where they over throw him because it was more of democracy so there were a lot of people who made the laws and if the rebels wanted to over throw them they would have had to over throw a lot of people versus just the king. If John was the king if Babylon they wouldn't have over thrown it because they believe that god makes the laws and they wouldn't discredit the gods

# data[].attributes.body
He would tell them that rebellion is not the answer, and they can get what they want by being smart and making the right choices. Violence is unnecessary and we can achieve the same result by acting differently

# data[].attributes.body
How might the Magna Carta have been different if John had been the king of Babylon, of Athens?

# data[].attributes.body
Is rebellion the only way to change an unfair situation? Would Socrates agree? Would Hammurabi agree?

# data[].attributes.body
What would Socrates say to the rebel barons about their situation and choices?