010592933
Though Socrates has been unjustly incarcerated, he refuses to escape due to his implied agreement with the Athenian legal system. This paper serves to argue that Socrates’ line of reasoning to Crito does not properly address actions committed under an unjust legal system.
In Plato’s Crito, the title character arrives to help Socrates break out of incarceration, but Socrates refuses. Crito made his most compelling argument by stating “I think you are betraying your sons by going away and leaving them, when you could bring them up and educate them” (45b-c). Crito later amended his argument by adding, “You seem to me to choose the easiest path, whereas one should choose the path a good and courageous man would choose, particularly when
…show more content…
This paper highlights a few fallacies that surround Socrates’ ideas about acting against unjust government.
A recurring theme in Crito is the definition of justice. Near the beginning of the dialogue, Crito states that Socrates needs to exit because “People who do not know you or me very well will think that I could have saved you if I were willing to spend money, but I did not care to do so” (44c). It is through that quote that the invalidity of public opinion is first addressed. Crito believes Socrates should escape, because the public opinion of Crito if he leaves without Socrates will be that Crito is cheap. Socrates approaches this
…show more content…
When Socrates posited the idea that the laws and citizens work together synergistically, was this not broken when Socrates was unjustly convicted of a crime? The logic of Socrates would hold that one should act in accordance with just laws, but when the legal system becomes unjust, one is not required to follow the laws. The only alternative to abiding the law is to expatriate or persuade the government, so one would think that Socrates would find the code of law not worth adhering to after it was proven unjust through his trial especially after dismissing the wisdom of public opinion. The tacit agreement of the citizen to the system of laws is also a point to be disputed. An individual’s inhabitance of an area does not suppose that he has extensive legal knowledge of his place of residence. For a legal code to be truly just, the citizens must be aware of all possible infractions and physically indicate their subscription to them. If a citizen were unknowingly to commit a crime, how could he be justly held accountable? Socrates should not be held accountable for his crime unless he consciously agreed to the laws and understood his action was illegal before it was
Crito on the other hand believes civil disobedience is sometimes morally legitimate in certain cases. He states “Your present situation itself shows clearly that the majority can do not just minor harms but very worst things to someone who’s been slandered in front of them” (pg.79) Crito tries to reason with Socrates by telling him how by abiding to these “just” laws is what got him in prison in the first place, and how he is going to be unjustly prosecuted because of it. He goes on by trying to persuade him that by escaping prison it wouldn’t classify as civil disobedience since he wouldn’t be harming anyone. If he stayed in prison it would seem as cowardness and seem irresponsible. Since Socrates has a responsibility towards his family
For these two articles that we read in Crito and Apology by Plato, we could know Socrates is an enduring person with imagination, because he presents us with a mass of contradictions: Most eloquent men, yet he never wrote a word; ugliest yet most profoundly attractive; ignorant yet wise; wrongfully convicted, yet unwilling to avoid his unjust execution. Behind these conundrums is a contradiction less often explored: Socrates is at once the most Athenian, most local, citizenly, and patriotic of philosophers; and yet the most self-regarding of Athenians. Exploring that contradiction, between Socrates the loyal Athenian citizen and Socrates the philosophical critic of Athenian society, will help to position Plato's Socrates in an Athenian legal and historical context; it allows us to reunite Socrates the literary character and Athens the democratic city that tried and executed him. Moreover, those help us to understand Plato¡¦s presentation of the strange legal and ethical drama.
The conversation states when Crito comes to meet Socrates in prison and ask him to escape. He tries to convince him by saying that he knows some people who are willing to rescue him and get him out of the country a quite moderate sum. Socrates appreciates his warm feeling very much. But it has always been Socrates’ nature to never accept advice from any of his friends unless reflection shows that it is the best course that season offers. Socrates then reminds him of the general principles now as before.
There are many instances in Plato's the Crito where Socrates gives reasons for himself to stay in Athens and face his death. Arguments range from that of him being too old to run, to the common response two wrongs don't make a right. The reason I intend to argue against is one Socrates expresses in regards to his obligations to the city he has lived in all his life, and thus the rules that he has subsequently followed throughout that time. In Athens just like any other city, one follows the rules that the respective city has laid down because he/she believes in those laws, or does not and keeps silent. In the stand Socrates takes, he argues that since he has lived in Athens all his life, he is required to stand his ground and take what's thrown his way, even if that punishment is death, "do you think you have the right to retaliation against your country and its laws?" (Crito, 53) Socrates was a master of words. It is easy to say that his intellect allowed him to make anyone see all sides of an argument. Even Crito at times is confused about his decision to free his friend, think that he is making the right decision, "or do you think it possible for a city not to be destroyed if the verdicts of its courts have no force but are nullified and set at naught by private individuals."(Crito, 52) Socrates’ words are very convincing, but what he is not thinking about is the fact that this whole predicament was not meant to be. Socrates was supposed to be in all ...
Socrates’ view on morality is that anyone can do wrong. It is said that injuring someone in return for injury to oneself is wrong. He follows this with the connection between morality and the city. You do badly without the cities authorization; you are doing wrong towards the city and the laws. He felt if you are behaving against peoples mind and in this way, behaving against the city. It is a way of destroying the cities laws and so you are hurting citizens by doing so. An example of this is the general understanding that you shouldn’t hurt your father. If you do so than you are disrespecting laws within your city. Of course you will get convicted for this, and it doesn’t change the idea that you acted against the city.
Crito wants Socrates to escape because he doesn’t deserve to die because he did nothing wrong. Socrates argues that if he escapes, he will be breaking the law. Which is the thing that he is trying to uphold. Socrates believes that escaping will go against all the things he has been arguing and teaching the youth. In my opinion Socrates is a good model of a vocation of a philosopher.
In Plato’s Crito, Socrates demonstrates his belief that character/soul is of the highest value. Socrates is in prison, wrongfully accused, and Crito is trying to convince Socrates to escape instead of being executed. Crito, being a cultural relativist, stresses the importance of public opinion in his argument for Socrates escape. Socrates attempts to explain the difference between reason and emotion. Socrates believes rational analysis is the only way to seek ethical insight, and that public opinion should be rejected because some opinions are valued more than others are. Using the analogy of an athlete and trainer, Socrates compares the trainer to one’s conscience. If the athlete listens to incorrect advice from others, he can injure, or corrupt, his body. Similarly, if an individual listens to the wrong moral authority, his character/soul would become
In Plato’s “Crito”, Socrates, who is convicted of spreading false beliefs to the youth in Athens is in an argument with his friend, Crito. Crito tries to convince Socrates of the reality of his sentence and that it would only make sense for him to escape. He gives many reasons of why escaping is necessary and moral. Crito states,
In Plato’s The Republic, we, the readers, are presented with two characters that have opposing views on a simple, yet elusive question: what is justice? In this paper, I will explain Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, as well as Socrates’s rebuttals and differences in opinion. In addition, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus, and offer critical commentary and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument at hand.
Socrates had a few reasons for accepting his punishments and not escaping the death sentence that he was handed. In hopes to convince Socrates to escape prison, his friend Crito visited him in prison before he was put to death. Crito initially began pleading with Socrates to escape because he did not want to lose a friend and he was afraid that people would think that he...
Socrates was not guilty as charged; he had done nothing wrong, as seen in the Apology. Not even a priest could tell Socrates what he had done wrong religiously, Euthyphro wasn’t even able to give Socrates a precise definition of piety. It is then questioned by Crito why Socrates would remain to face a penalty for a crime he did not commit. In the Crito, it is explained why, although innocent, Socrates must accept the penalties his peers have set upon him. It is his peers that will interpret and enforce the laws, not the law which will enforce it. Even if the enforcers don’t deserve attention and respect because they have no real knowledge to the situation, Socrates had put himself under their judgment by going to the trial. Therefore, Socrates must respect the decisions made by the masses because the decisions are made to represent the laws, which demand each citizen’s respect.
The subject matter of the “Republic” is the nature of justice and its relation to human existence. Book I of the “republic” contains a critical examination of the nature and virtue of justice. Socrates engages in a dialectic with Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, and Cephalus, a method which leads to the asking and answering of questions which directs to a logical refutation and thus leading to a convincing argument of the true nature of justice. And that is the main function of Book I, to clear the ground of mistaken or inadequate accounts of justice in order to make room for the new theory. Socrates attempts to show that certain beliefs and attitudes of justice and its nature are inadequate or inconsistent, and present a way in which those views about justice are to be overcome.
Socrates argues in the Crito that he shouldn't escape his death sentence because it isn't just. Crito is distressed by Socrates reasoning and wishes to convince him to escape since Crito and friends can provide the ransom the warden demands. If not for himself, Socrates should escape for the sake of his friends, sons, and those who benefit from his teaching. Socrates and Crito's argument proceeds from this point.
...ns. Why would he do this if he did not see the laws of Athens as just? In order to fulfill the agreement he has made with Athenian law, Socrates must accept the punishment he is given, though he feels that his being punished is Athens wronging him. It would be wrong, by his view, to escape from prison, though he would not be pursued, because he would be breaking his agreement to obey Athenian law. Since he and Crito previously agreed that one must never do wrong, he simply must stay in jail until his death. This is merely one example of the way in which Socrates uses a method of logical dialogue in order to make his point. He appears to be unmatched in his skills of deduction and consistently demonstrates his love of knowledge and truth. Socrates exemplifies all that is philosophy, both as a student and a teacher, because of his constant, active pursuit of wisdom.
When Socrates was brought to trial for the corruption of the city’s youth he knew he had done nothing wrong. He had lived his life as it should be lead, and did what he ne...