Sept. 27. Stockman and Socrates and the consequences of saying what you believe

In my class on Classical Political Thought, we are currently reading about and discussing the life of Socrates; a man who would stand in the public market, barefoot and impoverished, and try to teach the world about the degradation of Athenian society. The most recent document we are discussing is the Appology where Socrates stands in front of the Athenian court and is tried, convicted and sentenced to death. His situation was very similar to that of Stockman's. Here are two men who simply wish to point out the vileness of society and to make people think about how their actions are affecting others and in the end their teachings are considered unwelcome and they end up being ostracized and thrown bodily out of society.
Both men could be considered guilty of the sin of pride. Socrates, after the court convicts him, tells the court that his just punishment should be to receive free food from the hall of heros and a living expense from the people. He mocks the jury and the narrow margin that convicted him turns into a vast majority who seek his death. Even in the end he continues by claiming that in the end the court will be the ones punished rather than himself. And, judged from a rational point of view and considering Socrates' arguments and teachings, his last words are not all that radical, but when you've just angered a room full of self important men, you are not likely to receive amnesty.
Stockman too argues his point to the last, over the shouts of hatred and demands for silence. Rather than letting go of his pride and working with the council to find a solution to the problem that wouldn't bankrupt the town, he continues on in an ineffective effort to fight his entire town.
Yet, Ibsen, like whatever fate determined the life of Socrates, made a sort of no win situation for Stockman. If the bath's weren't cleaned up and the technologies weren't put in place, a great many innocent travelers would become seriously ill. Especially since, as Morgan says in her blog, the bacterial infection was caused by Cholera. If Socrates truly believes that the sophists are ruining his nation, how can he stand by and let it crumble to dust, as the young are taught the art of lying rather than how to judge the world morally and virtuously.
So what are they to do? How do they recreate a sense of moral order within the community? Is martyrdom the only solution? In a real-world situation where a community is not a closed system as Ibsen describes, how could this situation be handled better so that both sides get what they want, a moral community and a way to survive in an economic slum?
Do we not have to face this question today?