Socrates is one of the greatest philosophers of all time, known for his philosophical teaching but also for his conduct when faced with death. When Socrates was condemned to death for corrupting the youth of Athens and worshiping false gods, he was encouraged by his friend, Crito, to escape. Surprisingly despite his friend’s encouragement, Socrates insists that he stay and face his fate. The argument that ensues between Socrates insisting he should stay and his friend trying to convince him to flee, is recorded by Plato, a student of Socrates, in his famous work the Crito. In this text, Crito agues many different points trying to get Socrates to flee, all of which Socrates eventually refutes. However, perhaps the most compelling point address …show more content…
Instead of just stating his argument Socrates uses logic to lead Crito to agree with his points. The first point Socrates leads Crito to admit is that, “One shouldn’t return injustice or ill-treatment to any human being, no matter how one may be treated by that person”. To get to this point Socrates first gets Crito to agree to several smaller points that build upon one another. First, Socrates gets Crito to agree that one must be just in all things. To better define what it means to be treated unjustly Socrates identifies being treated unjustly and being ill-treated as being the same and gets Crito to also agree to this. Only after doing this does Socrates make his point that if one should be just in all things then this includes acting justly when one has been ill or unjustly …show more content…
This is why after firmly establishing this first truth on justice, Socrates moves on to his next point. This point is that if Socrates escaped he would be acting unjustly, because he would be breaking his agreement and mistreating his state. First Socrates addresses how leaving would hurt the state. Socrates brings up this dilemma by asking Crito, “Do you think that a city can still exist without being overturn, if the legal judgements rendered within it possess no force, but are nullified or invalidated by individuals?” By leaving Socrates would be breaking the law, which is the foundation of order in any state. If all broke the law such as Crito encourages Socrates to do than the rules would be void and the state would fall into chaos. Next Socrates reminds Crito that as a citizen under the law he had agreed to follow the entirety of the law. It was through the work of the law that Socrates was born and well educated. Than later Socrates was even given the chance to make his own choice about being a citizen or not. By becoming a citizen Socrates freely accepted the laws of his country and all the privileges they included. Thus Socrates would be unjustly treating the state by breaking the law only because now it no longer benefited him. To further emphasis his point to Crito, Socrates compares his
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
“He say Mr. Parris must be kill! Mr. Parris no goodly man, Mr. Parris mean man and no gentle man and he bid me rise out of bed and cut your throat!” (Miller 47).
"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.
When Socrates was sentenced to death, his friend Crito offers to help him escape, but he refuse to escape. He explains to Crito that if he were to escape he would be running away his whole life. He would stay at Athens and comply with the sentence as set by Athens law and die for his cause. Another reason that he gave Crito for not escaping was that he was already death alive and that he was too old to be running away .
...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.
In the dialogue, Crito, Socrates justified his decision to accept his death penalty. His decision was praised as principled and just. However, such a view was one of the greatest myths in the history of philosophy. Contrary to the accepted ideas, I wish to show that Socrates’ argument was erroneous, the crucial error being his failure to distinguish between substantial and procedural justice. In fact, the whole of the Crito refers to some deeper problems of the philosophy of law and morality.
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.
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' response to Crito's question “Why don't you escape if I'll provide you the means?” is that the primary criterion for moral action is justice, and escaping would be unjust, so he should not escape. Socrates reasons that if he were to escape, this would break the system of law enforcement since avoiding punishment when a city has deemed it necessary makes the law ineffectual if there is no consequence for breaking it. He would be a 'destroyer' of the law (Crito, 51a), an injustice he does not wish to commit.
Socrates was a philosopher who was true to his word and his death was ultimately felt by his closest friends and followers. In Phaedo, Socrates is met with his closest friends during his final hours as they await his death. At this point Socrates is prepared for death and seems to welcome it. Although death may seem like a scary inevitable fate that we all must face at one point; Socrates saw death as a privilege mainly because he believed that the soul was immortal. As a result, Socrates provides arguments as to why he believed the soul was immortal and even though all his arguments lacked unconvincing evidence, he does bring up good points. In this paper I will talk about Socrates’ most and least convincing arguments on immortality, and explain what Socrates’ problem was with Anaxagoras.
I have to side with Crito when it comes to leaving Socrates’s friends and family behind just because Socrates is too proud to break the laws. Socrates sounds like he does not want to put forth the effort to leave Athens and try to live in exile just to stay alive a little longer. While it is moral to obey laws at all costs, I feel that the moral “rules” should be disregarded when you are served unjustly by those same laws. Socrates is content with the life he has lived and has no intentions in breaking the laws now, which he has so justly followed throughout his whole life. The whole meaning in Crito, is defined quite clearly. Socrates believes in the always obeying the laws no matter the circumstance, even if that means sitting in a prison until you are to be executed unjustly.
In 399BC Socrates was sentenced to death on account of corrupting the youth of Athens. By this, the authorities claimed that he was teaching the youth to question what was commonly taught to them about religion, gods and goddesses. This was coming at the end of the Peloponnesian War, which was believed to have been a mark of Athena’s (patron Goddess of Athens) fury at her people. The people at the time believed that Socrates’ teachings would only have angered her further and so they arrested Socrates and eventually sentenced him to death. In this essay, I will explain the reasons why Socrates refused to escape from prison, and why I think he should not have accepted the death penalty.
...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.