However, instead of planning the escape Socrates started the dialog about why he would rather obey the law and be executed. At first, Crito presented two arguments to
His impiety is based off his questioning and disbelieving the traditional gods, and his corrupting and teaching the youth to do the same. Crito arrives at the prison after having arranged a potential escape opportunity for Socrates, and they proceed to debate whether it would be just for Socrates to escape. Socrates argues that while the
Crito is supposedly a friend to Socrates but his words and actions does not speak the same intentions. He tells Socrates that if he will not leave and escape prison, that everyone would think that he didn’t care about his friend well enough to help him. Socrates is not concerned about the opinion of the majority, for it is capable of neither the greatest evil nor the greatest good. Crito then questioned Socrates on many different things and also degraded his name and manhood. Some of the concerns listed by Crito regarded Socrates’ kids, the fact that his friends may be excluded from the Community, and playing into the hands of his enemies and giving aid to the ones who are disregarding the demands of justice.
Socrates believes that even though escaping prison would save him from an unjust death, he rather die without any faults than fighting for justice by doing something unjust. Inevitably, Socrates would prefer dying without any slander of his name because it would make him more honorable. As a rebuttal to Socrates beliefs of dying with dignity, dignity serves no just after
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 's main point is that Socrates should flee Athens because he was sentenced to an unfair trial. Socrates is already of old age, therefore if he were to escape there would not be many years of his life left to enjoy. Crito 's first argument is that Socrates ' death will be a great loss to him. Socrates is a friend and mentor that cannot be easily replaced for Crito. Crito does not refer to Socrates’ wealth, but he means that Socrates is a man of integrity and reflectiveness.
Crito accepts his arguments and Socrates decides he is going to
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.
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.
While his friend Crito advocates for his escape, Socrates believes that disobeying the law would be morally wrong and undermine the state's authority and laws. As Socrates asserts, "Do you think it possible for a city to continue in existence and not be turned upside down if the legal judgments pronounced in it have no force but are nullified and destroyed by private individuals?" Socrates believes that by living in Athens and enjoying its benefits, he has entered into a social contract that obligates him to follow the city's laws, even if they are unjust. Socrates believed that fleeing prison or disobeying the law violated his principles and society's social contract. He believed breaching the law would harm society and weaken the state because the state's goal was to promote the common good, and laws protected everyone's interests.
In Plato’s, The Republic, Book I, Socrates tries to prove to Thrasymachus “whether just people also live better and are happier than unjust ones” (352d). He argues that everything has a predisposed proficiency at a function, and that this functions are performed well by the peculiar virtue and badly by means of its vice (353a-353d) . The point of this paper is to present Socrates argument and evaluate it to the best of my ability. This argument can be categorized as an inductive generalization. Socrates states that the function of anything is what it alone can do or what it does best.
The version of Socrates presented in both The Apology, Crito, and The Republic could very well be two different versions of Socrates as presented by Plato. However, both versions of Socrates have one thing in common: they both value the importance of philosophy and they both defend philosophy as something that is important to humanity. The Apology is Socrates defending not only himself, but also philosophy as an area of study that could be useful to the city of Athens. Socrates is trying to defend himself and his study and he tries to distance himself from the sophists in that they charge for money.
Crito and others have the money to bribe the informers and wants Socrates to let go of his fears if he has any because it is well worth the risk. (Crito,45a.) Crito believes he will be welcome in cities such as Thessaly where he has friends that
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.
His journey for more truth and wisdom through conversation exposed the ignorance of some presumably wise citizens and also earned him a bad reputation. As the story begins, Socrates is visited very early and unexpectedly by his old friend named Crito, who has made arrangements to rescue Socrates before his tragic death takes place. Socrates seems very content with his trial to be executed. Crito is not happy, and argues with Socrates. He has many compelling arguments
