Plato's Crito: Analyzing The Crito

Socrates is portrayed as a religious man who for the better part of his life has been obeying the divine command. The question that is asked however is whether one is under an obligation to obey the laws even when they are not just. According to his Crito and his friends, Socrates would have been justified to break the laws and run out of prison because justice had been denied to him, to begin with. However, Socrates is accustomed to doing what he believes is right. He cannot forsake this course to save his life.

Although Oedipus appears to be an angry tyrant, his search for the truth, at the risk of losing his established reputation confirms his righteousness. A plague has struck the city-state of Thebes due to the mysterious murder of Laius, the late king of Thebes. As a result, Oedipus tasks himself with finding the truth of this crime in order to save the people of his city. While doing so, a key witness, a Shepherd, appears and Oedipus begins to question him. In the beginning of the questioning between Oedipus and the Shepherd, Oedipus simply asks for basic information regarding Laius’ death.

This essay is about Socrates in the Apology. Socrates was a philosopher, a religious fanatic and a man of reason who lived to questioned why things are the way they are, due to his occupation of questioning and reasoning he was later brought to court on charges of corrupting the young and encouraging people not to believe in godly things that are recognized by the state as said by his accusers. During his trial he said quite a numerous things in the Apology and he was found guilty by the juries and was sentenced to death. So, in this essay I will be explaining why he thinks that death should not be always avoided during his trial on apology. And I will be explaining my position regarding what Socrates has said that we shouldn’t always avoid death.

In Plato’s Apology, Socrates finishes the trial stating once again that he has done nothing wrong. If his accusers believe Socrates sons care more about money or virtue, the accusers should treat his sons the same way he treated them. Socrates thinks that if his sons are treated like he treated others, that it would benefit them. This fits into the Apology because he has made many arguments as to why he isn’t wrong. Although he has now been sentenced to death, he still makes one last statement to show that he believes he has always been in the right.

After speaking with Cephalus about justice, Socrates moves on to speak with his son, Polemarchus. Initially, Polemarchus’ definition is similar to that of his father’s. Polemarchus believes that justice means that you should help friends, and harm enemies. Knowing Socrates, he clearly was not going to willingly accept this definition; there are always exceptions. According to Socrates, depending on the occupation of an individual, there are multitude of ways to “help friends” and “harm enemies”.

Montresor could be making up the entire story, or he could be embellishing or downplaying the story so that he could defend his actions. If Montresor knew he did wrong, he may have left out exactly what Fortunato did, so he could embellish the wrongs to make them seem terrible, when they are the smallest of sins. Embellishing the wrongs helps to justify to the reader that the killing of Fortunato was a suitable thing to do based on the “thousand injuries of Fortunato.” Due to the unreliable narrator, the reader may not be reading the events as they happened, but rather Montresor’s

Hercule did this because he knew that Cassetti was a bad man and did many evil things to the Armstong Family. Casetti 's murder of Daisy Armstrong was so bad that the murder of Cassetti was justified. Hercule confirmed that revenge is an acceptable motive for murder by not informing the police of what he

/ It seems as if he is being judged for not feeling sad over his mother’s death instead of being judged for killing the Arab man. They are judging his character rather than his case. The judge should focus on his crime rather than how he acts. It was unfair for the judge to order his execution for not having the same feelings about the world as everyone else

A villain is someone who causes evil to others and is denounced by many people for their actions. The Punisher’s methods of Justice are constantly criticized because he is not the typical superhero: he does not aid the police by capturing the villain, but instead kills them. By killing criminals, one could say that he is a villain because he kills making him the monster that he does not want to be. So why even bother “helping” if he adds to the problem? One may also argue that in making the decision that the antagonists are villains, and they deserve to die, he has made the ultimate decision of life or death.

The conflict identified in the play relates to human nature and the human condition. When it relates to human nature, it describes it has the moral values of good, noble act, and evil, a malicious act. Instead to do the right thing, Macbeth decides to perform a malicious act to kill Duncan. The human condition that the play describes is that Macbeth the challenges that he faces in killing, such as the struggle to whether or not to kill for his personal gain in order to become a king. Even though he does not want to kill the king, he is pressured by his with to commit the