In Plato’s Crito, Socrates argues that one should never return a wrong with a wrong. Perhaps the strongest argument that Socrates gives for this claim relies on moral principle. Since retaliation does more harm than good and leaves most conflicts unresolved, an “eye for an eye” policy seems like the wrong approach. This paper will examine Socrates justifications further and argue why his claim is absolutely right, as well as support his argument by applying this type of narrative to real world issues. Socrates is faced with a death sentence after getting accused of devaluing the Athens religion through his practice of philosophy. Most people will feel outraged and betrayed, but not Socrates. He accepts his punishment and takes it on as faith. …show more content…
This means that the opinion of the majority is not worth noting if it results in a ruined soul. Therefore, when the moral question is brought up about whether escaping is the right or wrong thing to do, Socrates thoroughly assess the outcome. He came to the conclusion that escaping will not only cause him harm, but will cause harm to his city of Athens as well, because as he sees it, by living there his entire life, in a way, meant that he signed a social contact. The idea of a social contract “, an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits,” (Oxford) further strengthens Socrates argument for anti-retaliation because he personifies Athens in a role of a caregiver. Athens is a place that nurtured Socrates and molded him into the person he is, just like a parent does with their own child. And just like any good child will do if their parent was to hit them, is not to retaliate against them in the same physical manner because of the respect and love that is there. Furthermore, Crito mentions that it was fellow Athenian wrongdoers that put him in there, therefore, if Socrates decides not to leave then he behaves unfairly to himself. However, for Socrates retaliating against unjust is an act of unjust and that is certainly the opposite of what he is trying to live by, so he stands his ground and does not leave the prison …show more content…
Yes, Socrates did not kill anyone, but he was an innocent man who was put to death. This brings up the topic about whether capital punishment is the right form of retaliation. Our justice system was originally supposed to be about rehabilitation, not retribution. In other words, non-violent criminals should not only spend time behind bars, but get reformed as well, so that when they do leave they can live a productive life free of crime. The same goes for people who are violent criminals, as long as it did not involve murder. Murderers on the other hand, should spend their entire life in jail but not on death row, primarily because it is not 100 percent guarantee that the person that has been convicted is guilty. According to a study “at least 4.1% of all defendants sentenced to death in the US in the modern era are innocent.” (Guardian) The results are shocking because it proves how flawed the criminal justice system can get. The death plenty was immoral then, when Socrates was alive, and it is immoral now due to the potential of having to come across the mistake of taking an innocence’s life
"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
Many people have gone through their lives conforming their beliefs and practices for the sake of fitting in or for the happiness of others, but Socrates was not one of these people. In “The Apology” Plato shows Socrates unwillingness to conform through a speech given by Socrates while on trial for supposedly corrupting the youth of Athens and believing in false gods. Although the title of the dialogue was labeled “The Apology,” Socrates’ speech was anything but that, it was a defense of himself and his content along his philosophical journey. At no time during the trial was Socrates willing to change his ways in order to avoid punishment, two reasons being his loyalty to his God and his philosophical way of life.
When he is questioned why he doesn’t want to attempt to escape his death, he states that he feels it is unjust to escape. Socrates did what he believed his job was, which was to enlighten the youth to the unjust ways of society. While the way he was punished for it was unjust, Socrates stated that he has lived a happy life, and if he can’t rightly persuade the Laws of Athens to change its mind and let him go, then he can accept that.
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.
During this essay, the trail of Socrates found in the Apology of Plato will be reviewed. What will be looked at during this review is how well Socrates rebuts the charges made against him. We will also talk about if Socrates made the right decision to not escape prison with Crito. Socrates was a very intelligent man; this is why this review is so critical. In Plato’s Apology, it seems that overall Socrates did an effective job using the 3 acts of the mind.
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
...dditionally, Socrates believed that escaping would show that the people who tried him and found him guilty that they had in fact done the right thing. This would further their assumptions that he was corrupting the minds of people by running away and disobeying the law. If he had escaped, he may have been invalidated and may not be as important historically as he is today. Whether or not it made an impact on Athens or the rest of the world, Socrates did what he believed was right for himself and for the people. I believe that Socrates did what was honorable at the time. His honor and incite in to the way that people should live has been carried on through history is proof that people still value his ideas and reasoning.
In 399 BC, Socrates, the great philosopher in ancient Greece, was put to death under the hands of his Athenian fellow-citizens to whom he had a strong attachment, after a final vote with over two-thirds of jurymen against him. We cannot experience the situation where Socrates gave his final argument in the court of law. From Plato’s Apology, we admire Socrates’ brilliant rhetoric and rigorous logic, while at the same time feel pity for him and indignant with those ruthless jurymen. However, the question of what exactly caused his death and why was Socrates, such a remarkable thinker sentenced to death in the very society that valued democracy the most is not easy and straightforward to answer. There are multiple elements involved that finally caused this tragedy in which “a person of high moral principle is confronted step by step with a situation from which there is no escape” (38). First of all, the moral principle and belief in divinity held by Socrates are inconsistent with those of the Athenian society, implying the very crimes charged upon Socrates were not completely groundless. Secondly, the imperfect juridical system of Athens played a role in causing this tragedy. What’s more, Socrates himself, could have offered better defense in the court, also had a hand in his own death by his stubbornness regarding to his own interpretation of wisdom and piety. His rebuttal, though brilliant and insightful, was not persuasive enough to move the fellow-citizens for his wrong approach and sophistry in his cross-examination on Meletus.
In this literature review I will discuss both Socrates and Jesus Christ (Jesus). I will compare and distinguish them, by their trial, misdeeds (through the view of society), law, justice and punishment. In addition, I will write about their influence in today’s society and what impact they have made through time. Both Socrates and Jesus had many things in common yet, they we’re different. Both had different religious beliefs. While, Socrates was polytheistic, believing in several gods. Jesus, in the other hand was monotheism, believed in only one God. Both were charged, tried, and executed for their “radical” behavior with society. Overall, both men sacrificed themselves for the possible chance of change.
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.
(37) The problem is that many of the citizens of Athens who wanted Socrates dead, lacked that emotional intelligence and thought highly of themselves. So of course they become defensive when Socrates sheds light on the idea that they may be wrong. As someone who cared most about the improvement of the soul, Socrates would have made a constructive role model to the criminals of Athens, as he would go on saying, “virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue comes money and every other good of man…”(35) Socrates was able to benefit everyone alike as he had human wisdom- something that all the Athenians could relate
The basis for arguing against escaping is explained by Socrates to Crito. While Crito believes that there should be no questions involved in breaking Socrates out of jail, Socrates believes otherwise. The foundation that Socrates argues on, is that breaking out would do so against The Laws of Athens. Socrates makes the point that breaking the laws would in turn lead to other civilized states banning him from living there. Socrates is also concerned that if he we to break the rules, that the underworld would judge him harshly for his actions against his city’s laws.
...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...