If he escapes to another city, they will view him as a criminal and if his children came with him they would be viewed as foreigners. By breaking the law his soul would be ruined and a ruined soul is not worth living with. This goes back to when he said that the really important thing is not to live but to live well. Also, when he dies he would enter Hades as an outlaw and will not be well welcomed. Therefore, he believes that he should stay and face his execution because it is better to die than to live with a ruined soul.
He fears the majority and what they can say about him favoring money over friends. Crito then continues to say that Socrates should not fear the implications his escape can have on his friends. Then he goes on exclaiming that letting himself die for nothing is unjust, Socrates would be betraying his sons and what he is doing by staying is not only evil but also shameful. Socrates does not believe so. Socrates exclaims that “whether we should act in this way or not, as not
I think that Utilitarians favor exploring the alternatives because doing something to someone, even a criminal, who has committed a heinous crime, morally wrong, and two wrongs do not make a right, it is setting the wrong view for society. I do not agree with not punishing people who do wrong things. I feel that no matter how big the crime or infraction is, there must be punishment, if not then society will keep breaking the rules, and then we would live in an unsafe world, we would not have a sound mind, and be able to function,
To prove this, Socrates describes how “everyone would surely say that if a man takes weapons from a friend when the latter is of sound mind, and the friend demands them back when he is mad, one shouldn’t give back such things, and the man who gave them back would not be just” (331c). Even though the man who gave back the weapons did it to repay his debt, it would be unjust since the weapons could be used to harm other people, leaving the man with the guilt of knowing that any casualties were the consequences of their actions. Additionally, if someone was to follow Cephalus’ definition of justice and be completely honest with his friend who was of an unsound mind, it might result in the friend lashing out. Because the friend is not completely rational at that current moment in time, they would not completely understand the logical truth. As a result, they would become enraged and act violently.
He has passion for his beliefs and values, and would rather die than give them up. When presented with the idea of the jury releasing him he states “as long as I draw breath and am able, I shall not cease to practice philosophy” (Plato 32). This shows that Socrates does not believe what he has done and what he believes in is wrong; he will continue to do what he had been put on trial for if released. This is the exact opposite of what one would say to appease the jury. Socrates is on trial because some believe what he was doing was wrong, by refusing to acknowledge that he was wrong, this speech contradicts our modern day idea of an apology.
Furthermore, the decision to stop Socrates’s “antics” seems to be a permanent way to solve a temporary problem. The court was under the impression that the death of Socrates would result in the conclusion of his teachings; however, Socrates became a martyr and his teachings became immortal. In conclusion, I believe the government officials wanted some sort of remorse from Socrates because he challenged their authority, exposed their lack of knowledge and ultimately embarrassed them. They all felt threated and inferior due to his more impactful method of teaching. Had Socrates been willing to be silent and not spoken up, “his perpetual discussions, that unsettled everybody’s mind in this time of danger to the state, the jury would have undoubtedly have let him go,”
In line 1228 he says to the leader: “Oh it’s hard giving up on the heart’s desire… but I will do it” after he is convinced to let Antigone free. This quote says, Creon does not want to go back on his word and does not want to let a criminal get away, but he has to so his people can view him as a better ruler than they initially thought. This made me feel sympathetic because he was willing to give up something he cared about for the life of someone else. It shows a change he undergoes but was never able to fix his mistakes because Antigone had already killed
Antigone uses ethics to defend her arguments while Creon uses logic. Creon’s arguments only rest on his idea that the king should be followed and obeyed even if they’re right or wrong. Both Creon and Antigone’s arguments seem to be coming down to ethics versus logic. A logical argument is typically stronger because of the facts, but the law which became fact, due to Creon was only his values so it turns out to be an argument between two people’s values. In the play, Antigone, Creon and Antigone cannot give in to each other and if Creon gave in to Antigone’s wishes and spared her brother, he would have felt that he weakened himself as a ruler in the eyes of the people he ruled over while Antigone felt that he had to break Creon’s law for the honor that her already dishonored family had for being incestuous.
We are told that we are born with basic rights and that we have the freedom to believe in whatever we desire, however, the chains that bind us are morality and justice. People’s opinion of us stops us from having complete freedom. A person with strong morality would feel guilty if they were given the choice to commit an injustice against another, and thus decide not to do so in the first place, even if they are given the opportunity to do what they want with no harm done to the other person. In Plato’s Crito, Socrates only cares about truth, therefore, for him to escape prison would be considered an injustice. He will be breaking the law, confirming his accuser’s statements about him being a criminal despite the fact that their claims are untrue.
He lies and risks other’s lives to let himself live. A hero should be valiant and willing to put others before himself. On his way back from the Trojan War Odysseus and his men had to fight the monster, Scylla, in order to go back to Ithaca. Odysseus wouldn't tell his men that eight of them are going to be eaten. It states in the novel “No mention of Scylla--how to fight that nightmare?--for fear the men would panic ”(pg 278).
In Plato’s dialog, Socrates, the great Greek philosopher, gets prosecuted by the state and put in jail for a death sentence. The charges are being impiety and corrupting the youth. Although, that might be right, people thought that he was prosecuted unjustly. During the last days in prison, Crito, Socrates’s friend, was able to get in the prison and tells Socrates that he should escape with him. Socrates tells him that he should give Socrates good reasons to why Socrates should escape with him.
Therefore, people may see going against an unjust law as something to avoid because of the aftereffect they will be having to face. Furthermore, It is right to oppose something that is unjust. Individuals should do what they best believe is right in their opinions but laws shouldn’t be fully subjected by the people only or else it may lead to future conflicts and misleading mistakes. Overall, by desired changes, it causes destructive tension for
Alai also demonstrates, through his refusal, that he doesn’t possess the same compliance with inflicting pain on others despite being Bernard’s best friend. This exhibits the grandness of their humanity for they both sacrifice their own selves to prevent the boy they just met from getting hurt. “ He hadn’t meant to kill the Giant. This was supposed to be a game. Not a choice between his own grisly death and an even worse murder.