“Crito” is a discussion between Socrates and his rich fellow Crito that took place in a cell of jail while Socrates was awaiting his execution. Crito was there to persuade Socrates for an escape from a jail and the discussion focused on deciding whether Socrates should escape the jail or not. Socrates used his traditional style of questioning and logic to conclude that it is unjust to escape from the jail and he has to follow the order by the law.
Socrates reached his conclusion based on the following premises. First was we must not do any wrong (unjust) willingly. Second was we should not do unjust in return of unjust. Third was we must keep on our agreement that is just. Fourth was we must follow the law with which we are in agreement with. Fifth was Laws are just and the sixth was we must respect the judicial decision as not respecting the law produces unjust to law and the People.
If we accept that all his premises are true, we must also accept that his conclusion was true and hence a valid conclusion to be executed; so, let us try to see each premises critically and decide whe...
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
I believe that by Socrates complying with he sentence order by Athenians, he got his point across and he stood up for what he believe in and he never back down.
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.
It is his companions, Glaucon and Adeimantus, who revitalized Thrasymachus’ claim of justice. Thrasymachus believes that justice is what the people who are in charge say it is and from that point on it is Socrates’ goal to prove him wrong. Socrates believes that justice is desired for itself and works as a benefit. All four characters would agree that justice has a benefit. To accurately prove his point of justice, Socrates has to reference his own version of nature and nurture. He, Socrates, believes that justice is innately born in everyone. No one person is incapable of being just. Justice is tantamount to a skill or talent. Like any skill or talent, justice must be nurtured so that it is at its peak and mastered form. The city that Socrates has built is perfect in his eyes because every denizen has been gifted with a talent, then properly educated on how best to use their talent, and lastly able to apply their just morals in everyday
Socrates follows by explaining what is taught to each citizen. You are told that you were born with certain laws. Your father and mother brought you to the world in which they live and thus you should respect and obey by their rules. The laws were already there. That means, that your mother and father are as important as the city and you should respect the city as so.
...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.
When reading the dialogs of Socrates, it is easy to ready each as an individual story. It is more difficult to take into consideration every word that Socrates has said up to that point and allow that to influence the validity of Socrates current position or argument. Though this may be more difficult we must take everything that Socrates has claimed to hold in every dialog. While doing this brings up a potential contradiction between Socrates Apology and in his dialog with Crito. Though this contradiction is clearly visible when focusing on just the idea of these claims, there is background beliefs of the Gods that allows both Socrates claim in his apology and his argument in the Crito dialogs.
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,
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
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.
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.
Throughout the reading of Crito, it is quite evident that Socrates has fully accepted the execution and is not afraid of death. While Crito argues that Socrates cannot give in to death so easily and is worried about what opinions may be had at the expense of Socrates going straight to the execution; Socrates reminds Crito that the opinions of others should not matter. Crito is quick to point out that they have many friends that can help Socrates out and take him in. Crito is worried that people will form opinions of him regarding him caring more for his money than his friend.
Socrates questions Thrasymachus on why he adds the detail of the stronger to his definition of justice. Socrates than asks, if it is just for everyone to follow the laws that the ruler has made, if the ruler has made unjust laws. His argument is that people, even rulers make mistakes. This meaning that if a ruler makes mistakes on the law does that still make it just. It is a very conflicting argument to think about, if the rules are not just then why should they be followed but the rules were also put in place by someone who is supposed to know the difference between just and unjust and choose correctly. This relates to what Socrates says during his trial portrayed in the Apology. Socrates claims