Arguments In Crito

1195 Words5 Pages
Crito presents three contentions for why Socrates ought to get away. The initial two are genuinely frail. The third, concerning Socrates' obligation to his children is the strongest. Crito's first contention is that if Socrates does not get away, then he will hurt Crito in two ways. From one viewpoint Crito will lose a decent companion when Socrates dies in jail, and on the other, Crito's reputation will be harmed. People of Athens won't realize that Socrates stayed in prison. They'll assume that Crito refused to get Socrates out because he wasn't willing to spend the cash. Subsequently Crito will get a reputation for caring more for the money than his friend. In this argument Crito is accepting that it is an awful thing a man to accomplish…show more content…
As their dad, it is Socrates' obligation to see that his youngsters are raised well and taught, and he can't do this if he dies in jail. Here Crito advances to rule that are critical to Socrates. He brings up that seeking after goodness is the means by which Socrates declares to lead his life, and that a decent man would see that his kids are nurtured. Crito says that remaining in prison is the simple thing to do, yet getting away takes a lotof courage , and the proper thing, the good thing to do is to be overcome for his children (Crito, 45c-d). Here finally Crito is thinking about more senstive issues to Socrate than regret or the negative conclusions of others. He is worried with the destiny of Socrates' kids. Crito's essential supposition is that if Socrates' passes on, his youngsters won't be tended to in the most ideal way. Socrates himself calls attention to this is an incorrect suspicion. He says that Crito disregards the likelihood that his friends would be both willing and equipped for bringing his youngsters up. If he somehow happened to escape and go to Thessaly, he doesn't think it would be in his kids' best interest to raise them there, on the grounds that there they would be considered nonnatives. In the event that he got away he would solicit his companions to take mind from his youngsters in Athens, and there is no motivation behind why they ought to deal with them in the event…show more content…
Many of Crito's arguments concern the opinion of the majority--what will they think if Crito does not help Socrates escape? What will they think if Socrates is not responsible for his children? Socrates argues that the opinion of an expert is more important than the opinion of the majority. He gives the example of someone in training. Such a person does not pay attention to the advice of the general public, but to his trainer. Socrates extends the analogy to deciding on what the right way is to act. If we listen to the majority rather than experts we could harm our souls, the part of us that is mutilated by wrong actions and benefited by right ones(Crito, 47a-48a). Socrates does concede that as a majority, the general public has the power to put people to death, but he states that the most important thing is not living, but living a good life, so that it is not worth following the opinion of the majority if it means sacrificing something that is important for living a good life.(48b) The above is one of Socrates' most fundamental principles - that the really important thing is not to live but to live well. Therefore he considers whether it is morally right to pay off the guards and escape.
Open Document