The dialogue between friends, Crito and Socrates, shows the similarities in each thought process as both men are eager to display their integrity to their community. My analysis will show an evaluation of the parallels between Crito’s and Socrates’ understanding of what is morally appropriate. First, I will elaborate on Crito’s argument in which a plan to escape prison is the best choice for both himself and Socrates. Second, it will be important to discuss Socrates’ rebuttal to Crito. This comparison will be accomplished in this paper by contrasting both of their viewpoints.
Rather, he is tolerant in his discourse on whether he should take Crito 's offer. His contention was making sense of what was the proper act of what is just for this situation. Despite the fact that he was at the bleeding edge of the execution, he needed to make a point that, regardless of whether it was at the cost of his own life, it may not be just to flee from his looming destiny. Crito at first is perplexed and dumbfounded by Socrates and his delay to go into banish. As they speak, Socrates utilizes talk to demonstrate his inward difficulties and discover which way is the correct approach.
In “Apoligy” Socrates refused to admit his accusation, but in “Crito” he chose to accept the death instead of escaping. His value towards justice can be reflected by much of his word that “justice” is not limited to individuals but at a higher level; it is like a shared value inside all human being. When Crito said his worry of “shameful reputation” of spending money for friend”, Socrates asked him why he needed to consider other people’s opinions. “The best people, who are more deserving of our attention, will believe that the matter was handled in just the way it is.” (44c)
This he is unwilling to do because he holds it in such high regards and believes that if people did not follow the laws it would cause the fall of Athens. Therefor by him not accepting his punishment he would consider himself one of the highest criminals. This is yet another paradigm of how important the opinion of the majority is because they are the ones who create the laws. By following the laws you are really following the opinion of the majority. Here we see that perhaps Socrates was inconsistent in his reasoning as he places such a great weight on the majority opinion through law.
The version of Socrates presented in both The Apology, Crito, and The Republic could very well be two different versions of Socrates as presented by Plato. However, both versions of Socrates have one thing in common: they both value the importance of philosophy and they both defend philosophy as something that is important to humanity. The Apology is Socrates defending not only himself, but also philosophy as an area of study that could be useful to the city of Athens. Socrates is trying to defend himself and his study and he tries to distance himself from the sophists in that they charge for money.
With the Apology, and the Crito, Socrates comes to delve into his many teachings and finds himself put to death with the words of wisdom that have been passed down generation after generation. Socrates for many in this present day is a man of many words and great teachings, but anyone but Socrates thought differently, in Athens people thought of him as an annoyance rather than an integral part of society. As Socrates stood in front of the counsel of judges, he stood for what he thought was right and never changed opinion of himself or of his words. That’s why Socrates is still talked about in classrooms everywhere today.
Crito accepts his arguments and Socrates decides he is going to
He reminds Crito “no human being should do injustice in return, whatever he suffers from others”(Crito, 49c). Socrates argues even if the jury's decision was unjust, it is never permissible for him to do injustice in return and therefore he will not try to escape. In essence, even though Socrates is offered the opportunity to
Socrates was a greek philosopher who found himself in trouble with his fellow citizens and court for standing his grounds on his new found beliefs from his studies about philosophical virtue, justice, and truth. In “Apology” written by Plato, Socrates defended himself in trial, not with the goal of escaping the death sentence, but with the goal of doing the right thing and standing for his beliefs. With this mindset, Socrates had no intention of kissing up to the Athenians to save his life. Many will argue that Socrates’ speech was not very effective because he did not fight for his life, he just accepted the death sentence that he was punished with. In his speech he said, “But now it’s time to leave, time for me to die and for you to live.”
In conclusion, therefore I should stay in jail and accept the death penalty. 3. Agreement argument – if I escape, then I will break an agreement I made with this city, to break an agreement is an unjust action, doing unjust actions harms the soul, and it is better to die than to live with a ruined soul. In conclusion, Socrates should stay in jail and accept the death penalty. In conclusion Crito's arguments are very narrow.
To be just or to be served an injustice and obey, this is the very basis of the philosophical dialogue between Socrates and Crito. The Crito begins as one of Socrates’ wealthy friends, Crito, offers Socrates a path to freedom—to escape from Athens. Through the ensuing dialogue, Socrates examines, as a man who is bound by principles of justice, whether an unjust verdict should be responded to with injustice. In the dialogue between Socrates and Crito, Socrates outlines his main arguments and principles that prevent him from escaping under such circumstances. Socrates is under guard when Crito visits him, thus the plan to escape.
Socrates is one of a kind, and Crito does not want to lose him. Crito 's next argument is what people will think. Crito was worried that people would think that he did not care for Socrates if he did not break him out of jail. Crito did not want to be seen as someone who valued wealth more than valuing the opportunity to bribe the jailer and save Socrates. The most interesting argument is that Crito tells Socrates that it is morally wrong for him to stay and allow himself to be executed.
“Plato Apology” relates the trial of Socrates (469-399) B.C.E known as the father of Western Philosophy. Socrates, a son of sculpture and the midwife had a queer with most Athenians due to his point of view on values and beliefs. Charged with impiety and corrupting the Youth, Socrates’ defends himself by persuading the jury of his innocence with tangible reasons which made his arguments effective.
Despite the title of this historical piece of work, this speech, made by Socrates at his trial, was anything but an apology. Plato, who wrote Apology, was a student of Socrates and this is his account of the trial. Even though he was present at the trial, the colloquy may have been adjusted by Plato to reflect what he thought Socrates should have said or what he thought Socrates meant to say. Plato was very fond of Socrates, therefore the way he may present him can be bias. Socrates attempted to persuade the men of Athens of his innocence by presenting himself as a good man and an authority of knowledge, as declared by the Delphic oracle.
On his way to his death some might say he should escape since his trial is unjust. Some might argue, like Socrates, that it isn't right for him to escape and go against his word. His friend Crito is trying to argue the reasons why Socrates is in the right for escaping, while Socrates is arguing the opposite, why his morals will not allow him to do so. Socrates argues many things and makes very firm arguments.
