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…
is the justice of the matter. Crito claims that it would be unjust if Socrates stayed and died as he was sentenced to death for a crime he did not commit. In Crito’s mind this acceptance of death without trying to escape would be letting Socrates enemies, who sentenced him to death in the first place, win. In response to this argument Socrates lays out all the reasons it would be in fact unjust if he fled. Socrates uses superb argumentative strategies when convincing Crito that it would be unjust for him to leave.
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…
treated. While it is not automatically just for Socrates to escape because he was treated unjustly this does not mean that it is automatically just for him to stay and face death.
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
agreement with the state to that of a slave and master. Socrates makes the point that while these agreements are uneven it does not make them unjust. Despite this well formatted argument many people today still believe that Socrates should have escaped death when he had the chance. One of the reasons for this is that people often believe that one’s main goal in life should be self-preservation. While all life is sacred, Socrates is right in arguing that justice, or doing what is right, should come before all else. By not doing what is right one hurts themselves and others by altering how things are meant to be. Socrates is also very persasive when
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).
In life, people are taught many different ways to do things. Based on their learning, they form diverse perspectives and make knowledgeable decisions with the information given at the time. Some of the decisions can be influenced by values, morals, beliefs, religion, experiences, families and the world in which one lives. All of these factors can support and influence an individual’s principles. In Plato’s Crito, a dialogue is captured between Crito and Socrates about his escape from prison. In his writings, Crito discusses his reasons and thoughts why Socrates should escape his fate. On the flip side, Socrates provides just as many reasons he should stay in prison even though it was unjust.
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
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 .
Socrates argues in the Crito that he shouldn't escape his death sentence because it isn't just. Crito is distressed by Socrates reasoning and wishes to convince him to escape since Crito and friends can provide the ransom the warden demands. If not for himself, Socrates should escape for the sake of his friends, sons, and those who benefit from his teaching. Socrates and Crito's argument proceeds from this point.
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.
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,
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.
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.
The dialogue "Crito" recounts Socrates' last days, immediately before his execution. As the text reveals, his friend Crito proposes to Socrates that he escape from prison. In a dialogue with Crito, Socrates considers the proposal, trying to establish whether an act like that would be just and morally justified. Eventually, he came to argue that by rejecting his sentence and by trying to escape from prison he would commit unjust and morally unjustified acts. Therefore, he decided to accept his death penalty and execution. Because of his decision, he became one of the cult figures in the history of philosophy, a man of intact moral integrity who had made his final decision according to the very same principles that guided his entire life. He was praised as a grand rationalist who had acted rationally and justly—a view which, I believe, represents one of the greatest myths in the history of philosophy.
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.
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.
...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.