If I recall, Socrates came to this conclusion while being put on trial. Peter Kreeft gave the interpretation that Socrates claimed that no harm can come to the soul except by ones own choices, even if ones body can. This fits in an understanding of free will, where the individuals identity is defined by ones own choices, and is in no way influenced by accidents of nature, such as gender, disability, race or family of origin. Now I understand that the bible does not teach libertarian free will. Yet the big question is what compatibilism means with one individual vs. another individual. I have heard of some theological theories that people go to hell because someone did not pray for them, they were not evangelized to, made eligible for hell for hearing about Jesus, lived in a society where righteousness was significantly more difficult, were tempted by another, or became hardened from a hurt they suffered. But the truth is that ones circumstances do effect people(Though as a universalist, I agree that Gods grace is greater than any earthly causes).
Then there is also the matter of shame and guilt that comes from completely subjective matters. For example, it is often seen as shameful for a man to save himself for marriage, while it is shameful for a woman to not save herself for marriage. So someone may feel shame, even though it is an absolute good to wait. But it seems like Romans 13 teaches a form of goodness that is relative to ones country or authorities. I hope this is not getting too off topic, but the material world has much relativity on truth, and does not necessarily conform to higher standards of goodness and beauty. So I cannot help but wonder if there is a realm where goodness is subject, and does not adhere to standards of beauty. From what I understand, God is absolute truth, goodness and beauty, without any splits. So ultimately for something to be true, it also has to be good, and for something to be good, it also has to be beautiful.