the Republic, Socrates argues that justice ought to be valued both for its own sake and for the sake of its consequences (358a1–3). His interlocutors Glaucon and Adeimantus have reported a number of arguments to the effect that the value of justice lies purely in the rewards and reputation that are the usual consequence of being seen to be just, and have asked Socrates to say what justice is and to show that justice is always intrinsically better than is acting contrary to justice when doing so would win you more non-moral goods. Glaucon presents these arguments as renewing Thrasymachus’ Book 1 position that justice is “another’s good” (358b–c, cf. 343c), which Thrasymachus had associated with the claim that the rulers in any constitution frame
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
Plato’s Crito takes place in the jail cell of Socrates, who is wrongfully committed for a crime and is subjected to death. Socrates friends, including Crito, formulate a plan to bribe the guard overlooking Socrates and help him escape in order to give him a peaceful life in exile. Yet, Socrates objects to all of these actions and chooses to face death for many valid reasons. Socrates does not take a stance about whether escaping looks good or bad, instead he lets other people decide whether it is good or bad, for it reflects on them and not on Socrates. Socrates views escaping his unjust punishment as wrongful due to his gratitude, consistency, and loyalty to the laws and order of the government.
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
In Plato’s, The Republic, Book I, Socrates tries to prove to Thrasymachus “whether just people also live better and are happier than unjust ones” (352d). He argues that everything has a predisposed proficiency at a function, and that this functions are performed well by the peculiar virtue and badly by means of its vice (353a-353d) . The point of this paper is to present Socrates argument and evaluate it to the best of my ability. This argument can be categorized as an inductive generalization. Socrates states that the function of anything is what it alone can do or what it does best.
Segregation is the separation of two or more things, whether it be people or objects. In 1896,the Plessy v. Ferguson court case upheld the idea that blacks and whites should be separated. They were separated by school, restrooms, drinking fountains, and any amenities one can think of had been segregated. This lasted many years until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 abolished the idea of segregation in every state. The real question here is, can this happen again?
Additionally, if he commits this wrongdoing, he is tainting his own soul and Socrates believes that it is better to die than to live with a tainted soul. For that reason, Socrates must stay in jail and accept his
Socrates’ Arguments in the Crito In The Crito, Socrates argues that he should not escape prison because it would be morally incorrect. He says that the really important thing is not to live but to live well. Therefore, by escaping prison, not only will he suffer the consequences but also his family, his friends, and the city of Athens. Socrates argues that the city of Athens would be affected if he escapes from prison.
Since the day of the judgment between Athens and Socrates in 399 year B.C. many historians, philosophers, and students wonder to know whether Socrates was Guilty. Philosopher was accused in corrupting the youth, not believing in the recognized gods and introducing new divinities and in the rejection of civic life in democratic society. It is very difficult to answer on this question, may be even impossible. In my opinion, there are three types of people: 1.
What Socrates is trying to explain to Crito is that if he helps him escape he is going against all that Athens stands for by breaking the law. In other words, Socrates cannot commit an injustice against the law because by doing this he would undermine the whole system. Socrates touches on how this system needs to be protected and he lists things that the government and city of Athens has given him and the people to justify his
Even though Socrates claims to be innocent of the charges brought against him, he is ultimately sentenced to death. After he hears the jury's decision, Socrates is sent to jail to await his execution. Crito arrives before Socrates is scheduled for execution and offers him a chance to escape. Crito believes the jury's decision was unjust. In Crito's eyes, Socrates is innocent and therefore has the right to escape. However, even though Crito believes Socrates has the right to escape, Socrates disagrees with him.
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.
In Plato’s “Republic” Socrates decides to censor stories that show people (especially men and the gods) acting improperly and immorally, anything that can be proven untrue, and most ridiculously he decides that the music that guardians in training listen to should also be censored. Socrates does this because he is worried that immoral actions in the stories will affect the citizen in a negative way. Socrates’ censoring of music is somewhat more complex and less blatant than his censoring of literature, he decides that since music has an effect on people that the guardians in training should only listen to “manly and ordered” (basically meaning empowering music).Unfortunately, censorship of all these things would create more problems than not
Socrates started his life as an average Athen citizen. His parents worked, making an honest living. But as Socrates grew up, he began to realize that his mind questioned things and wondered how come no one else questioned the same things or at least think about the answers to the questions that were not answered. So, as his mind kept wandering, he began to acknowledge the questions that were not answered and sought for those answers. He ended up believing and teaching things to other people, whether it went against the way the Athen government or not, he still continued his work.
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.
