Rhetorical Analysis Of 'Conflicting Values' By Ramon Harte

In Verity Harte’s “Conflicting Values”, she discusses how Socrates’ values are not aligned with Athen’s laws in which he speaks for, and to show that Plato’s dialogue Crito is not just about Socrates staying to die by Athenian laws, but instead have an alternate message. These two points are also intertwined, as Harte believes the misconception about Socrates’ values leads to a misconception of Crito as a whole. So, in order to find the true message of Crito, we must start with Socrates’ value system. Harte begins once again saying that Socrates’ value system is separate from Athen’s laws. She believes that Socrates is “hearing voices” in a Corybantic fashion, described as acknowledging an argument that affects you, even if you may not agree with it. The same issue fell upon Socrates when he heard Lysias’ speech. However we know that Socrates never agreed with Lysias, making his own argument in tangent, then writing them both off because they are offensive to the gods. Another reason why Harte believes Socrates is Corybantically affected by the Laws is due to Socrates saying that they are “buzzing inside of him”. This “buzzing” is Socrates acknowledging the Law’s power, but also

In Plato’s works, Socrates is defined by having a non-retaliation agreement. While the Law’s agreement is similar, they clash on one very large issue. Socrates believes that you should never do wrong or return wrong, as it immoral to do so. The Law’s take on non-retaliation isn’t that absolute, allowing retaliation as long as it is not “wrong”. This direct conflict is the key reason as to why Socrates cannot agree with the Laws. So even though Socrates was wronged by the Laws, he must not retaliate against it. By sacrificing himself, he both follows his own value system and shows the wrongness of the Law’s value