However, instead of planning the escape Socrates started the dialog about why he would rather obey the law and be executed. At first, Crito presented two arguments to
His impiety is based off his questioning and disbelieving the traditional gods, and his corrupting and teaching the youth to do the same. Crito arrives at the prison after having arranged a potential escape opportunity for Socrates, and they proceed to debate whether it would be just for Socrates to escape. Socrates argues that while the
Crito is supposedly a friend to Socrates but his words and actions does not speak the same intentions. He tells Socrates that if he will not leave and escape prison, that everyone would think that he didn’t care about his friend well enough to help him. Socrates is not concerned about the opinion of the majority, for it is capable of neither the greatest evil nor the greatest good. Crito then questioned Socrates on many different things and also degraded his name and manhood. Some of the concerns listed by Crito regarded Socrates’ kids, the fact that his friends may be excluded from the Community, and playing into the hands of his enemies and giving aid to the ones who are disregarding the demands of justice.
Position Paper #1: For Socrates’ Argument of Tacit Agreement In The Crito Socrates uses two metaphors to justify his reason for staying in jail and dying instead of leaving Athens and starting a new life in another town. The metaphor he uses that most justifies his reasoning is the argument of tacit agreement, that he agreed to the laws and regulation of Athens when he decided to live there. Socrates knew that living in he agreed to follow all rules that the city had.
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.
The first concept that I noticed shared by Russell and Socrates was the concept that one had to remove themselves before serious philosophical contemplation could take place. In Russell 's case, he refers to the "Self" and the "Not-Self". With Socrates, as seen in the Apology, confronting his accuser about the corruption of youth, his accuser is silent because he had not given the matter any thought. Socrates awareness of his own ignorance frees him from what Russell would refer to as "Self". I mention this because it serves as a common theme even as both philosophers differ in their messages.
Crito accepts his arguments and Socrates decides he is going to
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,45d). Crito believes you should not have kids or stay with them to the end, raising them and educating them. Crito believes that the trial was unfair and should have never happened so with that said not doing anything to save Socrates or Socrates not saving himself is cowardly and unmanly. Socrates Counter-Arguments The first of Socrates counter arguments is about the opinions of men and whether you should listen to some peoples opinions, but not to others.
I have always been a rule follower. I have absolutely no desire to get into any form of trouble. When I do get in trouble, however, I take responsibility for my actions and accept the punishment with no argument. If I were in the same situation as Socrates, I believe that it would be in my nature to remain, and I would do so in order to avoid a lifetime of anxiety and to protect my reputation. I think that the primary reason for my will to remain stems from my fear of what the rest of my life would entail.
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.
Was Socrates right to say he would stay in Athens no matter the consequences, or should he have fled Athens to avoid death? Socrates was right to say he would stay in Athens no matter what because first, he believed he was sent to Athens or “placed in Athens” for a specific reason and he also believed that even though the Athenians found him as a threat and annoying, he believed that it helped them. Socrates was right to say he would stay in Athens no matter what the consequences were because he believed that he was placed or in Athens for a reason. This quote from “The Apology” is an example to prove that he was placed in Athens for a reason. “Because if I tell you that doing that would mean disobeying the god, and so I can’t keep quiet,
Socrates bases this view of justice on the worth of living a good life. “And is life worth living for us with that part of us corrupted by unjust actions” (47e) If we corrupt our soul with injustice, our life would not be worth living, therefore one must never commit an injustice. “When one has come to an agreement that is just with someone, one should fulfill it.”(49e) It is this agreement with the Laws that Socrates would be violating, if he were to
Crito has an escape plan in place to break out Socrates. Socrates decides that if he were to escape it would not be morally justified. Socrates discusses why he has a duty to stay and face his charges, as well as why the action of fleeing would be unethical. To Socrates, breaking one law would be an injustice to all laws and would cause great harm to the
It is impious to bring violence to bear against your mother or father; it is much more so to use it against your country.” What we say in reply, Crito, that the laws speak the truth, or not?” (TDS pg 51,52). By breaking the law, Socrates would be disobeying the laws as a citizen, like a child disobeying his parent. By escaping he would have been doing an impious act that would affect his standing with the gods.
