On the other hand, it is such a difficult decision to make to accept punishment for a crime one has not committed. This is a decision that overlooks the difference between moral and legal. As a matter of fact, Socrates at a certain instance admits to breaking the laws of the city and is not willing to apologize. He instead says that he is only willing to obey God not man. With all that said, Socrates made the right call by refusing to run to exile to save his life.
To realize what is just and unjust to get a bigger picture of who we might gather opinions from. Who we regard as wise and unwise. Crito should seek the answer of the wise. Just as Socrates says in this passage. “Then, my friend, we must not regard what the many say of us: but what he, the one man who has understanding of just and unjust, will say, and what the truth will say.”
Glaucon believes humans are restrained by consequences and human’s happiness comes from being an unjust person rather than Socrates’ belief of being just truly leads to happiness. The passage written by Plato goes in to great detail of how Socrates defends his position and how Glaucon defends his position as well but then leaves the reader to formulate his own opinion. With both Socrates’ position and as well as Glaucons, it is clear to see that Glaucon has the more rational reasoning within the debate of who’s happier, the just or unjust person. In Plato’s writing, The Republic, Glaucon challenge Socrates to describe justice and to give reasoning to why acting justly should be believed to be in anyone's self-interest. Glaucon claims that all goods can be distributed into three classes:
For this, Alcibiades admires Socrates. Socrates speech cannot leave him unmoved; conversely, he realizes that the life he lives is not worth living. Even though perception of this hurts him and he tries to avoid hearing Socrates’ teaching, he still cannot deny that Socrates does his job as nobody else. He feels ashamed and “embarrassed” (216c). Nevertheless, why?
Thrasymachus believes justice is the good of another-- doing what is of advantage to the more powerful. This is a revisionary definition because this is a perversion of the word justice as it is typically associated with morality by his peers. Justice is not defined by laws the more powerful have written, but is defined by what is advantageous to the more powerful as in the example of the eulogy therefore excluding obedience as Socrates assumes he means. He offers an implicit conception of where everyone must work towards the good of the most powerful. By defining this as justice there is no need for exercising self advancing interests in order to act just.
This is not possible as it is a contradiction. In Kant’s view, categorical imperatives, such as killing, are moral only if one could will the whole population to make the same decision. With this, we run into problems. I can’t will the whole population to love themselves and also kill themselves just as I can’t will the whole population to both lie and not lie at the same time (Velleman 44). One of the situations has to be immoral.
Socrates believes that one's focus should be on what is morally right and wrong, which should be independent of what society thinks. Socrates articulates that moral right and wrong depends on our own intuition on whether we believe that our actions is inflicting evil on others. Furthermore if he escapes prison he has inflicted evil on his government because of his obligation to keep the laws of the government. Socrates continues to say that like his parents, the government deserves his obedience. I agree with Socrates that it all boils down to our morality and our own reason to what constitutes to civil disobedience.
Socrates' purpose in expressing the allegory is to show how the human race may not always see the truth but rather convince themselves that what they see is the truth. In other words, people allow themselves to believe what they would like to believe. As Socrates speaks, he has a questioning, curious and wise tone towards Glaucon, he speaks as if he does not even know the truth himself. By continuously asking Glaucon questions, Socrates is sparking a somewhat confused and thoughtful reaction. Glaucon himself sounds so deep in thought, he cannot utter more than a "very likely", "I agree", or "very true" to Socrates.
Knowledge is both good and clever, and per Socrates, because both knowledge and justice are the same in one regard they are the same in being both good and clever. Though Socrates and Thrasymachus agree to this it can be stated that the division fallacy and the no-sequitur fallacies were made. By closing that what’s right about one part of Socrates argument, it must be applied to all that are of the like. Moreover, though its agreed that both the premises are true, the conclusion does not necessarily follow. Applying these formal logic, it is affirmed that Socrates’ argument for justice being wiser than injustice is
When Thrasymachus is describing how to get away with suffering from injustice he only takes into account human form of punishment. But if there is a judgement by God after one dies, then there is another form of punishment that Thrasymachus has to address. And if there is a punishment from God, then obeying Him is how one ought to live. Which, of course, relies upon worldviews, so my critique is that he should address the eternal consequences of temporal actions. If that means he does not think there is eternal consequences because there is no God, then it would be helpful for the