Socrates’ Arguments in the Crito In The Crito, Socrates argues that he should not escape prison because it would be morally incorrect. He says that the really important thing is not to live but to live well. Therefore, by escaping prison, not only will he suffer the consequences but also his family, his friends, and the city of Athens. Socrates argues that the city of Athens would be affected if he escapes from prison. By escaping from prison, he would be breaking the laws of the city.
In this essay, I will present an argument that shows that Plato will convince Socrates to reconsider his decision to receive the death sentence. Plato would show Socrates that his three reasons for staying to receive his sentence is unjust because his action is fuelled by injustice. I will also show that Socrates will agree with Plato about the unjust consequences that his actions may bring after Plato reasons why Socrates is doing an injustice. Finally, Plato would then proceed to show Socrates that his decision to stay cannot result in happiness and justice which in turn will cause Socrates to re-evaluate accepting his death sentence according to his own ideals of a happy and just life. The first reason Socrates gives for accepting his death sentence is the fact that Athens has provided him with education.
He is given the opportunity to choose an escape, and live his life never being able to return back to Athens. He completely opposes the idea and decides to live out the consequences of his trial, ultimately dying. Socrates made it his mission to live a virtuous life, which he did, right to his death. To life a virtuous life it would have gone against his own belief if he did escape his conviction, making this aspect very important in his philosophy. “To do so is right, and one must not give way or retreat or leave one’s post, but both in war and in courts and everywhere else, one must obey the commands of one’s city and country, or persuade as the nature of justice.
Socrates views escaping his unjust punishment as wrongful due to his gratitude, consistency, and loyalty to the laws and order of the government. The reasoning behind Socrates’ friends trying to persuade him to escape are validated through their arguments. First, the friends are worried about the opinions of others for it could look like the friends did nothing to try and help Socrates in this situation. For instance, Crito states that it’s not only a disaster that he will lose an exceptional friend like Socrates, but that Crito will “appear to most people, who don’t know you and me well, not to care- since I could’ve saved you” (pg 105). Although Crito and the rest
Therefore, Socrates would rather abide by the Laws than go against the people and escape. In his eyes, the rule of law is always “just” and citizens should always follow it. Every one of Socrates’ friends disagree with him but ultimately, Socrates decides to listen to himself and goes with what he truly believes to be the “right thing to do”. Based off this logic, citizens should follow laws that are also deemed to be “unjust laws” just because it is a law. Socrates believes that if one isn’t living a “just” life, then there is no reason to be living at all, and that one must never do
Socrates uses reasoning and logic throughout his trial. I believe that Socrates is innocent because he defends himself truthfully with effect. He uses sound arguments and he is passionate about philosophy. Socrates did nothing to gain in life and did not want a high social standing. Socrates is fair and uses correct methods of arguments by uncovering the
Furthermore, Socrates would never rationalize breaking the law because it would be violating an agreement made between the citizen and the state. The state is responsible for taking care of its citizen, whether it is in the form of education, health or protection and in return the citizen should follow the laws set by the state. Socrates mentioned that “it is impious to bring violence to bear against your mother or father; it is much more so to use it against your country”(Plato 54). In addition, Socrates believes that even though an injustice has been done one cannot amend the wrongdoing with injustice. “That neither to do wrong nor to return a wrong is ever correct, nor is doing harm in return for harm done”(Plato
Socrates was put to trial, accused of spoiling the youth of Athens, tried and sentenced to death. His personal defense is described in works two of his students: Xenophon and Plato. Both of them wrote papers called Apology, which is the Greek word for “defense”. In this essay I used Apology by Plato as the main resource, since it contents a more full account of the trial of Socrates and his words. Despite the fact that the philosopher attempted to defend himself and explain the reasons for saying and doing the things he did, it did not do any good for his justification.
In Plato’s Apology, Socrates is put into trial because he is accused of corrupting the youth with his teachings that deviate from the established beliefs of the Greek society. Although he justifies that he is only doing what he believes is his duty, he reasons that even if he is given a death penalty, death is nothing to be feared. He raises multiple strong and effective arguments that explain to his audience that it is illogical to fear death. All of these arguments revolves around the central idea that death is not evil and that “no evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death” (Apology, 41c). The first argument that Socrates presents during his trial is the idea that death is not the most important thing to worry about in
Hamlet was despairing to live in such disgusting family, so he wished to escape by dying. He failed, because he could not accept suicide morally. The idea of Hamlet about suicide and the common belief could by proven by the famous philosopher Plato. Plato showed in Laws that suicide was shameful and disgraceful; the perpetrator should be buried in an unmarked grave. (Plato.stanford.edu, 2018) As a result, people were unwilling to suicide in order to maintain their reputation, and because their moral standard refused them to be a coward by escaping from incapable events.
During his trial, Socrates is being charged with corrupting the youth of Athens and not believing in the Gods. The rebuttal Socrates uses for being accused with corrupting the youth of Athens is "... either I do not corrupt them, or I corrupt them unintentionally, so that on either view of the case you lie. If my offence is unintentional, the law has no cognizance of unintentional offences: you ought to have taken me privately, and warned and admonished me; for if I had been better advised, I should have left off doing what I only did unintentionally - no doubt I should; whereas you hated to converse with me or teach me, but you indicted me in this court, which is a place not of instruction, but of punishment." Meaning that he hasn 't been corrupting the youth but if he was then he 's not the only one doing so. That there are so many more influencers out in the world then him and that he 's not responsible for corrupting ALL of the youth of Athens.
. . . if you think that things naturally enslaved are free or that things not your own are your own, you will be thwarted, miserable, and upset, and will blame both gods and men. But if you think that only what is your is yours, and that what is not your own is, just as it is, not your own, then no one will ever coerce you, no one will hinder you, you will blame no one, you will not accuse anyone, you will not do a single thin unwillingly, you will have no enemies, and no one will harm you, because you will not be harmed at all.” (Epictetus: The Handbook, pg.
This brings Socrates to his assumption that “nothing” is good because no harm can be done to you when you are nothing. He makes the assumption that you cannot be harmed outside of a physical sense, which we do not know to be true. So, if death is the complete end of existence like he claims it could be, there is no way we could be harmed because he is assuming we cannot be harmed mentally or spiritual. In reality, we as humans can easily defend that we can feel both physical and mental pain. Heartbreak, loss of a loved one, loneliness, etc.
Socrates execution was a politically motivated killing that was a result of corrupting the youth and neglecting the gods. During the golden age of Socrates, Athens had recently lost a war to their neighboring city-state, Sparta. Everybody in Athens was suspicious of anyone who displeased the gods (it was a common belief that the gods controlled war and that if someone displeased them, then they would turn the tide of the war in the enemy 's favor). Because of Socrates profession, many people were suspicious of him. Socrates got the attention of some very powerful politicians who didn’t agree with his ways and were angry with him because they thought that Socrates had lost the war for them.