The purpose of "Crito" seems intended to exhibit the character of Socrates in one light only, not as the philosopher, fulfilling a divine mission and trusting in the will of Heaven, but simply as the good citizen, who, having been unjustly condemned is willing to give up his life in obedience to the laws of the State. The main argument that seems to entail the discussion between Crito and Socrates is the opinion of the majority on Socrates’ fate.
In the "Crito" Socrates states, "Why should we care so much for what the majority think?" (Plato 45) Socrates believes that we should not care what the majority thinks because those who are reasonable people will understand. However, Crito’s counter-argument to this is that the majority can cause great harm; therefore we should care what they think. Socrates further goes on to say the majority acts haphazardly; therefore, they cannot do great good or great harm (Plato 45). Crito says that "the opinion of the many" would judge us wrong if we didn't help you (and anyone in your position would agree that you ought to escape). Socrates notes that some opinion is right and some opinion is wrong. It is not simply a matter of mere opinion, but of correct opinion. The authority in this case is the actual truth of the matter. Socrates introduces a distinction between true opinion and false opinion. And the path to the latter is through argument and reason. By appealing to the opinion of "the many," Crito seems to be committing the Ad Populum Fallacy (i.e., something is right, true, etc., because the majority of the population says it is). Socrates seems to pose an open argument: the opinion of the many says that escaping from jail is right – but is it right? Socrates seems to believe that although the majority believes it is right for him to escape from jail he is going against what he believes to be true. Socrates believes that he has a tacit consent with the state by living in Athens for 70 years he has accepted their laws. Furthermore disagrees with retaliation and rejects Crito’s suggestion to flee to Thessaly he will be welcomed there and free to speak. Socrates seems to have adhered to the belief that if he was born and raised in this state and had children here he must have agreed with the ways in which the state operates; therefore, he cann...
... middle of paper ...
...ur country to intervene and help countries less able. South Vietnam needed the support of the U.S.—especially when the North Vietnamese forces threatened them.
	Thus, in conclusion I believe that Socrates was correct to disregard the opinion of the majority. Socrates accepts his fate, for this reason alone he is not a coward. Socrates disagrees with retaliation and has faith in the government of Athens. Although Socrates may not agree with the decision of the assembly to put him to his death, he realizes that he was done wrongly by the assembly rather than the laws of Athens themselves. I believe Socrates feels this way because he has lived under the laws of Athens for 70 years and he has raised his children under the same principles. Socrates accepts the fact that being a member of society demands a certain respect and obedience. Without the rules and punishment system Athens would not be able to function properly. As Socrates decided to become a citizen of the state of Athens he also takes along with him the responsibility of being a citizen of that state. In following the more reasonable people I believe Socrates is merely following the path in which the Gods intended.
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
"Do we say that one must never in any way do wrong willingly, or must one do wrong in one way and not in another?"3 Socrates tries to help people understand that mistakes are human nature, however to do wrongful things on purpose should not be tolerated. Crito agrees with Socrates statement, "So one must never do wrong."4 Crito believes in what Socrates is expressing, yet he wants Socrates to perform an unreasonable action and escape from prison. A big thing for Socrates is trust and being loyal to his family and city. "When one has come to an agreement that is just with someone, should one fulfill it or cheat on it?" Crito believes one should fulfill it. Which Socrates then states "If we leave here without the city's permission, are we harming people whom we should least do harm to? Are we sticking to a just agreement, or not?" Socrates thinks that if you commit to something you need to be a man of your word and follow through. If you make an agreement with someone, you should keep your word to the fullest extent. Socrates thinks he needs to adhere to the agreement of being in prison. He believes he shouldn’t leave unless someone tells him otherwise and to the just thing by upholding the decision. Again, Socrates doesn’t want to offend anyone or show disrespect, which shows his strong desire to always to the right
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.
As Socrates awaits his upcoming execution; he is visited before dawn by a close old friend Crito. Crito has made arrangements to help Socrates escape from prison. Socrates is grateful to his old friend for his willing to help aide him in the escape. However, Socrates is quite willing to await his execution. Crito tries to change Socrates mind about escaping by presenting him with several arguments. The first is that if Socrates choices to stay, his death will reflect poorly on Crito. The people will think that Crito did nothing to save his friend. If Socrates is worried about the risk or the financial cost to Crito; it’s an expense that he is willing to pay, and that he made arrangements for Socrates to live a life of exile in a pleasant manner. The next argument that Crito pleads to Socrates is that, if he stays, he would be helping his enemies in their injustices, and in turn would make Socrates act in an unjustly manner himself. Also, that Socrates would be abandoning his sons and leave them without a father.
He says that the citizen is bound to the Laws like a child is bound to a parent, and so to go against the Laws would be like striking a parent. The Laws conclude, then, that Socrates has no reason to break the Laws now: he has had every opportunity to leave or disagree, and the Laws have made no effort to deceive him in any way. In fact, until now, Socrates has expressed great satisfaction with the Laws. There is a part of us, which is improved by healthy actions and ruined by unhealthy ones. Socrates refers to an argument with Crito in which he considers whether or not it is right for him to escape without an official discharge. If it turns out to be right, he must make an attempt to get away and if not, he must let it
...uments are completely different. Crito wants Socrates to escape because he doesn’t deserve to die because he did nothing wrong. Socrates argues back 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.
Contrary to this widely accepted myth, I will try to demonstrate that Socrates' argument was erroneous, which made his decision less rational. In fact, had he decided to escape, his behavior would not have represented an unjust act. Although his argumentation and dialogue with Crito seem more like a moral sermon, his ...
He states that if he were to escape he would not be living honorably which he describes in Plato 's “Apology” as living a unexamined life and to him he would much rather die. Socrates states, “one must not even do wrong when one is wronged, which most people regard as the natural course” (Plato, 268). Socrates even though his sentence maybe biased and not morally right still believes that he must follow what he is condemned to. Through this he implies that even if we are cheated of fairness we must still do what is honorable and not fight it. He explains that the majority of people in his case would justify it to escape because they were sentenced for something that is completely moral. I disagree with Socrates in that if I was in his place, I would gain freedom and face my enemies for they wronged
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.
Throughout the readings of The Apology of Socrates and Crito I have found that Socrates was not a normal philosopher. It is the philosopher's intention to question everything, but Socrates' approach was different then most other philosophers. From one side of the road, Socrates can be seen as an insensitive, arrogant man. He did indeed undermine the laws so they fit his ideals, leave his family, and disregard the people's values. On the other side he can be seen as an ingenious man who questioned what many thought was the unquestionable. As he can be criticized for disregarding the many's ideals he can also be applauded for rising above the daily ways of popular thought. He questioned the laws that he thought were wrong and, to his death, never backed down in what he believed in. People may see that as stupidity or as heroism, the beauty of it is that either way people saw it, Socrates wouldn't care.
Socrates refuses to disobey the law. He believes in the correctness of the cities laws. He believes it is never right to act unjustly. He thinks that if you do not agree with the laws of the area that you are living at, then to leave and go somewhere else. He argues that the government could be seen as “his parents, also those who brought him up,” (Crito, 51e), since he has lived there his entire life and when you live somewhere for so long you should “persuade us or to do what we say,” (Crito, 52a) or leave. Socrates tells Crito that
Socrates reaches a conclusion that defies a common-sense understanding of justice. Nothing about his death sentence “seems” just, but after further consideration, we find that his escape would be as fruitless as his death, and that in some sense, Socrates owes his obedience to whatever orders Athens gives him since he has benefited from his citizenship.
Socrates believes that since he lived a fulfilling and content life in Athens, that he should be okay with the end result regarding the laws of city. While his choice is a bit submissive, the fact remains that Socrates is being help in prison under false convictions and thus a decision must be made by the reader as to whether or not Socrates could break out and not actually break the laws. Crito mentions that if Socrates is to make no attempt at escaping, he will leave his sons without a father. Socrates acknowledges t...
Finally, Socrates considers the consensus argument in his decision to stay in prison. Escaping from prison broke his consensus with his city and such an act constituted injustice. Therefore, it constituted maligning one’s soul and, therefore, it was better to die than live with an unjust soul.
...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.