In this paper I will argue that Socrates’s argument at 50a-b of the Crito would be not harming his fellow citizens by breaking the laws. Based on the readings from Plato’s The Five Dialogues, I will go over the reasoning of Socrates’ view on the good life. I will then discuss the three arguments Crito has for Socrates regarding his evasion of the death sentence including the selfish, the practicality, and the moral arguments. I will deliberate an objection to the argument and reply to the objections made in the paper and conclude with final thoughts.
Socrates argues in the Crito that he should not escape or disobey the law because it is unethical. Crito is distressed by Socrates reasoning and wishes to convince him to escape since Crito and friends can provide the ransom that the jury demands. If not for himself, Socrates should escape for the sake of his friends, sons, and those who benefit from his teaching according to Crito. However, Socrates denies the plan of escape. The three arguments to be acknowledged are as follows: the selfish, the practicality, and the moral. Socrates reason not to escape, Socrates explanation of the good life, and an objection for breaking the laws that would put no harm to his fellow citizens
is
…show more content…
Socrates compares the relationship between a citizen and a city to that of a child and a parent. Athens has nurtured Socrates in body and mind, given him an ideal environment to raise his own children in, to give him a platform to exhort people to be virtuous (Crito, 51a). As any child benefits from the protections and provisions of a parent, he must also obey the parent when it requires something of him. So, Socrates considers it his civic duty to obey Athens wishes since he has benefited from his citizenship. Socrates reaches a conclusion that defies a common-sense understanding of