Socrates Argument At 50a-B Of The Crito

To be just or to be served an injustice and obey, this is the very basis of the philosophical dialogue between Socrates and Crito. The Crito begins as one of Socrates’ wealthy friends, Crito, offers Socrates a path to freedom—to escape from Athens. Through the ensuing dialogue, Socrates examines, as a man who is bound by principles of justice, whether an unjust verdict should be responded to with injustice. In the dialogue between Socrates and Crito, Socrates outlines his main arguments and principles that prevent him from escaping under such circumstances. Socrates is under guard when Crito visits him, thus the plan to escape.

While Socrates awaits his death in prison, Crito visits him one day to discuss Socrates choice to stay and await his penalty. Crito has various criticisms of Socrates’s decision which I will present and explain. I will then explore how Socrates responds to each of Crito’s criticisms and the successfulness of his responses. Finally, I will analyze Socrates’s response and give my own opinion of its effectiveness.

In Apology, Socrates faces possible execution as he stands trial in front of his fellow Athenian men. This jury of men must decide whether Socrates has acted impiously against the gods and if he has corrupted the youth of Athens. Socrates claims in his defense that he wants to live a private life, away from public affairs and teachings in Athens. He instead wants to focus on self-examination and learning truths from those in Athens through inquiry. Socrates argues that "a [man] who really fights for justice must lead a private, not a public, life if [he] is to survive for even a short time" (32a).

The trial and death of Socrates is a book with four dialogues all about the trail that leads to the eventual death of Socrates. The four dialogues are Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo. It will explain the reasoning that brought Socrates to trial in the first place and give us a glimpse into the physiological thought of this time, and in this paper will describe some of the differences today. The first of the four dialogues are Euthyphro.

Plato challenges an individual to follow his conscience. Socrates is challenged with facing death or escaping and relocating to a new area where others will not know of his prior sentence. It is a decision of whether to follow your conscience and do what you consider the right thing to do or to disregard the issue and feel guilty about it for the rest of your life. In the end, Socrates feels he must see the sentence out even if it means death but he is sending a message to his family that he is not above any laws…there is a reason for laws and others must be willing to abide by those laws otherwise there could be mass chaos to follow (Plato, Crito, n.d.).

Sydney Leopard Philosophy 105 3-5-2018 What is pious and impious and who, on the off chance that anybody, is to decide equity? In The Trial and Death of Socrates, Plato relates the dialog amongst Crito and Socrates in his correctional facility cell. Crito is doing what he supposes is just and intends to convince Socrates to escape execution. Socrates, however, doesn 't rush to take Crito 's offer.

Socrates 's second argument “The Analogy between the State and One 's Parents”, in my opinion, is flawed and could be improved. The first chapter of our textbook reads: “Our parents made our lives possible—they brought us into being, raised us, and educated us. We are therefore obligated to respect and obey them. The state also makes our lives possible, by providing a social environment that nurtures and sustains us. So we have a similar obligation to respect and obey the state.”

In a world without law peace and justice would be hard to maintain. The law is created to help protect the people’s rights and keep them safe. Throughout time laws have been changed either creating new laws or restructuring old laws or just removing old laws. There is a thin line between right and wrong and that is why people have been struggling throughout the ages to come up with the perfect set of laws to follow. With this uncertainty set in place the question of whether if it is ever justified to break the law comes up.

The reason I ask this question is because Socrates refused Crito’s and other friends’ suggestion and stick to his decision that is to stay in the prison instead of run away. In most people’s opinion, a father has to take the responsibilities to take care of his children. Also, a husband should try as hard as possible to protect his wife if he loved her. However, Socrates didn’t do so as we expect.

In all of Plato 's dialogues, Socrates ' main goal is to achieve happiness, although friends and foes alike present him pathways that could lead to pleasure, but not true happiness. Moreover, in Crito, Socrates pursues happiness by obediently following the Athenian law, whereas, Crito tries to lure him into committing an unjust action so that he can obtain the pleasure of having a friend and keeping a good reputation and so that Socrates can still have the pleasure of life on earth1. One can know that happiness and pleasure are different due to the fact that happiness is a state of being eternally fulfilled, but pleasure provides a person only an immediate and short-lived image of fulfillment. If happiness is being eternally fulfilled, then it would not be of this world because this world has many flaws and is mortal.

Position Paper #1: For Socrates’ Argument of Tacit Agreement In The Crito Socrates uses two metaphors to justify his reason for staying in jail and dying instead of leaving Athens and starting a new life in another town. The metaphor he uses that most justifies his reasoning is the argument of tacit agreement, that he agreed to the laws and regulation of Athens when he decided to live there. Socrates knew that living in he agreed to follow all rules that the city had.

Michelle DeLude Contrast the views of Plato in Crito and Martin Luther King, Jr. in “A letter From a Birmingham Jail” on law whether one may permissibly disobey an unjust law or an unjust use of a just law. Explain both positions and evaluate, giving reason, which view you think presents the better argument. To have a political obligation is to have a moral duty to obey the laws of one’s State or Country. Political activists and Philosophers alike have struggled to evaluate the conditions under which people are morally entitled to disobey the law or an unjust use of a just law.

Alcibiades (450-404 BC) was an Athenian politician and military commander. He was wealthy and born to the statesman Pericles. Alcibiades was one of the main reasons that Athens had lost the Peloponnesian War to Sparta. He was a general during the time of this war occurrence. He acted as a military commander, a politician and a strategic advisor in total.

Crito was afraid because his friend Socrates was willing to be executed; Crito made haste to explain that he can and must help Socrates to escape. All it would take is a few appropriate bribes to the guards and anyone who was willing to provide meaningful information, which would not be at all difficult to take care of. Crito further explains that if Socrates does not escape, no one would believe that he had willingly faced execution. Instead, Crito would be accused of not helping Socrates, He would rather be accused of being materialistic. Socrates suggests that one should only be cautious of the opinions of sensible people who will see things exactly as they turned out.