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

finds it an annoyance and trouble, much like the insects that buzzed back in Socrates’ day.
After Harte describes to us how Socrates can appreciate the Law’s without abiding them, she gives us a major reason to why Socrates value system is separate from the Law’s.

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

system.
Now that Socrates has been established as having a separate view as the Law’s, the Crito becomes a dialogue involving three member: Crito, Socrates, and the Laws. What’s interesting about this is that each member believes that Socrates should act according to justice, however each member’s definition of justice is different. Crito believes in a kinship-type justice, where he believes the right thing for Socrates to do is to save himself for his friends and companions. Socrates believes in his own Socratic system, in which he must follow moral guidance in according to his soul. Then the Laws are set up as a civic system, in which justice is what’s good for the community, regardless of the act on the individual.
By having three separate systems in this dialogue, Plato questions the reader on their belief. Harte believes that this is the true purpose of the Crito, not to show us why Socrates chose death, but to show us that there are always several ways in which we can live our life. Each way has it’s own path, and it is up to us to question the path we are currently on, and to make sure that we follow a value system in which we believe is just.