Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Morality and ethical decisions
Free will philosophy essay
Free will philosophy essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Morality and ethical decisions
If there is no free will, there can be no morality. Morality is the concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong. Reading from the apology, Socrates reminds Crito of some general principles when Crito tries to persuade him to escape from the prison.
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. He talks about being safe from the prospect of dying tomorrow in all human probability and not likely to have his judgment upset by this impending. Socrates answers first that one should not worry about public opinion, but only listen to wise and expert advice. He thinks that she should not regard all the opinions that people hold. One should regard the good
…show more content…
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
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
In today’s society, no man can be sentence to die because he speaks out his mind, everyone is entitle to freedom of speech. If Socrates were alive today, he would have being able to express his mind with out being sentence to die.
The writer states, “Socrates was defending his "... position and rights as a citizen rather than relinquishing them in voluntary.” This is a strong point on informing the reader that Socrates’ commitment for Athens was incredible. However, as a committed citizen of Athens he chose not to appeal for his death sentence, when he clearly had the chance. Understanding Socrates’ obligation to Athens and his strong belief he should have rightfully appealed his conviction. It was only reasonable to believe that as a committed citizen you have the obligation to appeal if you believe there is an injustice. This will ensure that another citizen won’t be treated unjustly as
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.
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,
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’ argument in his defense of not leaving prison is formulated on the basis that no harm should ever be done to another person. In Socrates’ discussion with Crito, they both agree that harm should never be done regardless of being wronged. Following their agreement on no harm ever being committed, they also agree that if someone comes to a just agreement with another person, then they should fulfill that agreement. Socrates’ next point comes from whether or not harm is being inflicted if that agreement is not fulfilled. Socrates says that if those who enforce the law cannot enforce those same laws, then it would be an attempt to destroy the city.
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.
“The idea is that society rests on an agreement that we make with one another.” This, is perhaps, the strongest of three statements made during a dialog between Socrates and Crito. Socrates makes it clear that he is a patriot to the city which he has known his entire life. It can be argued that his friend Crito does not share in his patriotism. His concern is more about his own appearances, money, and property, as opposed to doing what is right in the eyes of the law. This was evident in his escape plan presented to Socrates.
Plato’s work, The Crito, explores one of the last days of Socrates’ life. This work is set in Socrates’ prison cell, where Socrates is visited by his close friend Crito. Crito is overwhelmed with emotion with the impending loss of his friend, and is attempting to passionately convince Socrates to run away and avoid his sentence set upon him by the court. Crito presents many arguments that would be compelling to most men of his time. Socrates lays out the principles that he has chosen to live his life by and challenges Crito to convince him to leave after considering these principles. Socrates never directly tells Crito he is wrong, but he asks questions that force Crito to ascertain that he is wrong.
32). According to this view, Crito is explaining to Socrates that even though he has been sentenced to death, to disobey authority because he can’t be afraid to escape in order to be successful and do it. I believe Crito is trying to shame him into escaping so that he can clear his conscious about getting I 'm in prison in the first place and having the opportunity to get him out and not take it. In sum, then, the issue is whether it is wrong to disobey authority or whether it is okay to disobey authority.
...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.