# data[].attributes.body
3.) The Manga Carta would be very different. In Babylon the only men who would be treated equal would be the rich non slave men.
In Athens the government was a democracy, so the men who were citizens would not allow a document that said all men should be treated equally.

# data[].attributes.body
#2. I think some form of rebellion is necessary to change an unfair situation.  I think Socrates would disagree because he believed that by living somewhere you have agreed to follow their laws and Hammurabi would also disagree because he believed God would punish people who overruled the law.

# data[].attributes.body
If John were the king of Babylon or Athens, the Magna Carta would have never happened. In Babylon and Athens religion was very important. King John never wanted the Magna Carta to happen in the first place and the King is chosen by God, and in turn if people didn't want it they would have been going against God.

# data[].attributes.body
#3. The Magna Carta would be different if John was the king of Babylon there wouldn't a Magna Carta John would probably be removed from power or exiled/killed. In Athens John would probably be executed or exiled through this Magna Carta will not be implemented.

# data[].attributes.body
Both Hammurabi and Socrates believe strongly in the law and justice. We think they would both look for every possible action towards change that would not break or devalue the law in order to stay "virtuous/moral".

# data[].attributes.body
#1. The Magna Carta addresses fair  trials and due process of law and even though Socrates believed in accepting your punishment, he also believed you should be able to stand up for yourself. In Crito, Socrates felt that even though he had not broken the laws, he should accept his punishment because the government had sentenced him to it and he had entered into an implied contact with the city simply by living there. On the other hand, Socrates wanted people to form their own opinions by questioning them.

# data[].attributes.body
#2 A rebellion isn't the always the only way to change an unfair situation, and we think Socrates would agree with this because his thinking is based off of logic and what is best for society, and Hammurabi would disagree with rebellion or change at all, and would kill anyone who talked about changing their situation

# data[].attributes.body
1)socrates would agree with the choice a the barons because they are striving for equality and fairness for all

2)that depends on the situation. in cases like someone else having a nicer car than you no, because while its not fair, the only way to change that would be to make/ save more money to buy a nicer car. but in the case of a tyrannical government yes because there is really no other way change that situation without taking back their rights by force since they aren't committing crimes. socrates would agree for the sake of fairness to all, hammurabi would say that they have to just deal with it because he is a god and his will is law.

3)if john was king of athens then instead if having a magna carta the citizens would have just voted to exile john or take away his power. in babylon, the rebel barons would have just been executed for rebelling against the king

# data[].attributes.body
1. Socrates would say to the rebel barons that there's another way to approach the problem. Socrates would like how they were standing up for what they believe in, but would criticize them for fighting evil with evil. He values the truth and to make moral decisions which the barons didn't follow closely.
2. Rebellion is one of the ways to demand change as a citizen, but you can engage in a civil, nonviolent protest or talk to create change. Socrates would try create change in a peaceful way but would want people to fight for what's right. Hammurabi would not agree as much as Socrates. They have similar beliefs.  In Hammurabi,  people weren't equal and not all were as protected.

3. The Magna Carta probably wouldn't have been created because there wasn't such a big need for it.  The citizens requests for change wouldn't have been met because of what the Gods wanted. It also probably wouldn't have protected everybody and checked the leaders power.

# data[].attributes.body
Socrates values justice, fairness, and equality, but also values virtue and above all the law. We believe that he would approve of the new laws because they promote freedom, but he would not support the overruling of the old laws.

# data[].attributes.body
#1. Socates would say to the rebels barons that they are doing a good job with their choices because that they are making sure that nobody is above the law. Even if you are a King you are not above the law.

# data[].attributes.body
1)Socrates would probably want everyone to stay honourable to the laws made even if they don't fully agree, you should still follow through with them. He would be disappointed but he might understand why the people are rebelling to fight for equality.

2)Socrates would 100% not agree because he would probably believe that all laws are there for a reason. Hammurabi would probably be extremely confused seeing how he only based his life of of the Gods, he wouldn't understand why rebellions were happening.

3) If John were to be king of Athens, he would not go along with what the gods want and do more of what he wants to do because he believes he is in a higher authority position. The Magna Carta would probably be different in a way where it might not even exist.

# data[].attributes.body
#1
Socrates would tell the barons that they should exhaust all of their other options before rebelling and to make sure the choice they make benefits the kingdom as a whole rather than the individual. From what we have learned about King John's actions his kingdom was no longer just and according to Socrates in Crito (pg 141) an unjust state inevitably gets overthrown.
#2
Rebellion isn't the only option as there are many different ways you can confront a situation. Socrates would see rebellion as a last resort because as he stated in Crito (pg142) it is morally right to respect your state, however if you disagree with something you should voice your opinion. Hammurabi would disagree because the Gods would punish anyone for rebelling and going against the law.
#3
If King John had ruled Babylon, a rebellion would have been much less likely, and therefore Magna Carta wouldn't exist. This is because of their faith in the Gods, and the fact that they would punish for disrespecting laws. Disregarding the fact that Athens would have no king, a rebellion would still have been less likely (so no Magna Carta) because the people of Athens would be more likely to voice opinions and contradict King John's individual actions, so they wouldn't pile up into such a mess.

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

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

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