In this paper I will argue that Socrates’s argument at 50a-b of the Crito would be not harming his fellow citizens by breaking the laws. Based on the readings from Plato’s The Five Dialogues, I will go over the reasoning of Socrates’ view on the good life. I will then discuss the three arguments Crito has for Socrates regarding his evasion of the death sentence including the selfish, the practicality, and the moral arguments. I will deliberate an objection to the argument and reply to the objections made in the paper and conclude with final thoughts. Socrates argues in the Crito that he should not escape or disobey the law because it is unethical. Crito is distressed by Socrates reasoning and wishes to convince him to escape since Crito and friends can provide the ransom that the jury demands. If not for himself, Socrates should escape for the sake of his friends, sons, and those who benefit from his teaching according to Crito. However, Socrates denies the plan of escape. The three arguments to be acknowledged are as follows: the selfish, the practicality, and the moral. Socrates reason not to escape, Socrates explanation of the good life, and an objection for breaking the laws that would put no harm to his fellow citizens is …show more content…
Socrates compares the relationship between a citizen and a city to that of a child and a parent. Athens has nurtured Socrates in body and mind, given him an ideal environment to raise his own children in, to give him a platform to exhort people to be virtuous (Crito, 51a). As any child benefits from the protections and provisions of a parent, he must also obey the parent when it requires something of him. So, Socrates considers it his civic duty to obey Athens wishes since he has benefited from his citizenship. Socrates reaches a conclusion that defies a common-sense understanding of
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
From beginning to end, Aristotle’s captivating reading, Crito, is composed with of the three rhetorical devices: logos, pathos, and ethos. Consequentialy, one of the existent rhetorical devices is more robust than the others. Whilst logos and pathos spawn well-founded emotional and logical enticement, the most indisputable rhetorical device used throughout the story is ethos. Undoubtably, ethos is the utmost evident rhetorical device in the story, Crito, as Socrates honorably stood by his morals, even after Crito tried to prompt the man to abandon them; demonstrating his thickness of character, integrity, and honesty.
With the Apology, and the Crito, Socrates comes to delve into his many teachings and finds himself put to death with the words of wisdom that have been passed down generation after generation. Socrates for many in this present day is a man of many words and great teachings, but anyone but Socrates thought differently, in Athens people thought of him as an annoyance rather than an integral part of society. As Socrates stood in front of the counsel of judges, he stood for what he thought was right and never changed opinion of himself or of his words. That’s why Socrates is still talked about in classrooms everywhere today.
Socrates states that if one does not agree with the contract that you tacitly agreed to that one must either try and persuade the state to change or follow the rules that they have. Socrates tried to sway the court on his ruling and failed, he now feels obligated to follow through with the ruling and accept the punishment that he was given. He also realizes that if he did not like the rules and regulations of Athens that he had the choice to leave and reside in another city. Socrates knows that since he has lived in Athens for many years and benefited from the goods and services of Athens he feels obligated to give Athens his
Political activists and philosophers alike have a challenging task of determining the conditions under which citizens are morally entitled to go against the law. Socrates and Martin Luther King, Jr. had different opinions on the obligation of the citizens in a society to obey the law. Although they were willing to accept the legal punishment, King believed that there are clear and definable circumstances where it would be appropriate, and sometimes mandatory, to purposely disobey unjust laws. Socrates did not. Socrates obeyed what he considered to be an unjust verdict because he believed that it was his obligation, as a citizen of Athens, to persuade or obey its Laws, no matter how dire the consequences.
Through becoming a teacher of the young men who followed him in Athens, Socrates effectively began to enter the public life. He was able to influence others through sharing his conclusions of justice, self-examination, and piety, and by asking relentless questions. Socrates effectively showed that an individual can live a private and a public life, even if Socrates was not directly involved in the policy-making in Athens. An individual can combine these two aspects of life in a productive way allowing her/him to live a full existence. These individuals can become teachers, politicians, and activists who use their focus on justice and piety in their private lives to advocate and create laws that promote true justice for the rest of the
Socrates believes that justice benefits the just, but also benefits the city (other people) too. He is faced with a seemingly simple choice, escape Athens or remain in prison and be sentenced to death. Socrates’ central argument against escaping his circumstances is twofold. First, Socrates argues that “one must never do wrong.” (49b)
The world we live in is filled with crime, evil, and injustice, but do people have the desire to do bad things knowing that they are bad, or do they do them thinking that they are good? In this essay, I examine Socrates argument, found in Plato’s Meno, that no one knowingly desires bad things. If Socrates were right, it would mean that it is impossible for someone to perform a bad action based on their desire for that bad thing. Instead, all bad desires result from the ignorance of the person performing the action in falsely believing that the action is good. Though Socrates presents a compelling argument, I argue that it is possible for someone to act badly, all the while knowing that what they desire is bad.
The Social Contract Plato’s Crito depicts a conversation between Socrates and Crito. Socrates’ friends intend to help him escape from prison before he is executed. Their conversation touches upon subjects like justice, injustice and the appropriate response to injustice. Socrates argues that one must not answer to injustice with more injustice as that would be an injury to the laws and to the city of Athens.
In conclusion, therefore I should stay in jail and accept the death penalty. 3. Agreement argument – if I escape, then I will break an agreement I made with this city, to break an agreement is an unjust action, doing unjust actions harms the soul, and it is better to die than to live with a ruined soul. In conclusion, Socrates should stay in jail and accept the death penalty. In conclusion Crito's arguments are very narrow.
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.
Here is my first piece of evidence to support my point. “I happen to be a gift of the god to the city; and this is how you can tell: Unlike most people, I have neglected all my own interests, and I’ve put up with this private neglect for so many years, while always attending to your business.” (Lines 108-111) In the quote stated above, Socrates claims that even with the annoyance people found in him, he pursued in his mission to help the people. Even though he had to give up his interests and hobbies, he did not give up his mission and focused on his work with the people all those years.
(Crito.49b). He believes the city raised him like a child from birth so retaliating is the same as striking your parents down. (Crito,50e). Socrates believes your country should be honored more than your parents or ancestors and by not doing so is not godly. Turning your back on your country is doing the wrong thing, so to escape is
In conclusion, it is shown that the ethics of Socrates and Plato can be understood by examining the works of the Crito, Meno and Phaedo. Plato 's philosophical concept in these three dialogues is mostly about denying what the self wants, either normal things like food and earthly desires or trying to gain knowledge, and instead, choosing what is just and right. This is Plato’s concept of a good life. From this quest for knowledge, virtue is obtained, and this is the main goal of philosophy in Socrates ' mind. Laws must be made in accordance with wisdom by those who practice philosophy, and must seek to benefit the city as a whole.
Even though Socrates claims to be innocent of the charges brought against him, he is ultimately sentenced to death. After he hears the jury's decision, Socrates is sent to jail to await his execution. Crito arrives before Socrates is scheduled for execution and offers him a chance to escape. Crito believes the jury's decision was unjust. In Crito's eyes, Socrates is innocent and therefore has the right to escape. However, even though Crito believes Socrates has the right to escape, Socrates disagrees with him.