Expositorical Analysis Of Socrates : Unjust In The Crito

The Crito and the Republic were both works of Plato. Plato’s works were divided into early, middle and late dialogues. The Crito falls into the category of the formal while the Republic falls into the category of the latter. In his early dialogues, Plato was influenced by Socratic philosophy but as he ages, he starts to develop his distinct and independent philosophy. Justice is the fundamental concept that will be discussed in this paper. The scope of discussion will mainly revolve around the Crito, the Apology and the Republic. In Socrates’ submission and acceptance of his sentence lies the implication that Socrates agrees with democracy as a political system. Plato, on the other hand,

In life, people are guided by moral beliefs and principles. Whether their beliefs are good or bad, their decisions are based on them. In Plato “The Crito”, Socrates emphasizes his moral beliefs and principles when he decides not to escape from prison. Although Socrates had the opportunity to escape his death sentence, he chose not to do so because he had a moral obligation to commit a sacrifice.

Crito argues that Socrates should escape jail, and relies on the premises that he must consider the opinion of the public and that Socrates is betraying his children. Crito believes that Socrates is being foolish by remaining in jail and not escaping when given the opportunity. To support this argument, Crito presents two premises. The first of which claims that Socrates

The question of morality focuses on how we ought to be; how we ought to live. In a conversation with Crito, Socrates states, “to commit injustice is in every case bad and dishonourable for the person who does it” (49b Crito). He simply views that if an act is not just, the person who commits it will always lose from it. Socrates followed by saying “…one ought not to return an injustice or an injury to any person, whatever the provocation” (49c-d Crito). The victim should not retaliate because just as Socrates believes, committing an unjust act will always end badly. In the reading, Socrates says that even if the consequence is worth it to the person committing the unjust act, the act should still not be committed. On top of that, no matter how intense the provocation, Socrates still says do not return an injustice or injury to any person at all.

As a defender of civic virtue, the significance of obligation and authority of one’s representative government epitomizes the magnitude of respect that Socrates had for Athenian Jurisprudence, irrespective of the fact that he was prosecuted against. In the accounts of the Apology and Crito, there exists a plethora of evidence that demonstrate Socrates’s adherence of institutionalized authority. His loyalty of the Athenian State derives from his notion that the obligation to surrender to the law manifests a just society. One may ask, “how is it possible for a persecuted man to continue to profess allegiance to a polity that sought his trial and execution”? Though many would not have the capacity to sustain such integrity, Socrates had his reasons in

On the first point of violence, Socrates sees no justice in its practice. In conversation with Crito, they establish that doing any person an injustice is wrong. They also establish that injustice is equated to the infliction of injury. Thus, in true Socratic logic, “one ought not to return an injustice or an injury to any person, whatever the provocation” (Crito, 88c). Socrates is

In Plato’s Crito, Socrates talks about his obligations to follow the law. Although Socrates understands that the Athenian democracy has committed an unjust action by sentencing him to death, he is unwilling to escape with Crito. He understands that an injustice should not be answered with injustice, but there are times when one should question the law. In Socrates’ Defense and the Crito, Plato discusses when one ought to follow the law and when ought to not follow the law. One not only has the obligations to follow the law, but they are also obliged to break the law if it is unjust because it will then improve The Law.

In the Dialogue Crito, Socrates employs his Elenchus to examine the notion of justice and one’s obligation to justice. In the setting of the dialogue, Socrates has been condemned to die, and Crito comes with both the hopes and the means for Socrates to escape from prison. When Socrates insists that they should examine whether he should escape or not, the central question turns into whether if it is unjust to disobey laws. Socrates’ ultimate answer is that it is unjust; he makes his argument by first showing that it’s wrong to revenge injustice, then arguing that he has made an agreement with the city’s law for its benefits, and finally reasoning that he

In Plato’s The Republic and The Apology, the topic of justice is examined from multiple angles in an attempt to discover what justice is, as well as why living a just life is desirable. Plato, writing through Socrates, identifies in The Republic what he thought justice was through the creation of an ideal city and an ideal soul. Both the ideal city and the ideal soul have three components which, when all are acting harmoniously, create what Socrates considers to be justice. Before he outlines this city and soul, he listens to the arguments of three men who hold popular ideas of the period. These men act to legitimize Socrates’ arguments because he finds logical errors in all of their opinions. In The Apology, a different, more down-to-Earth, Socrates is presented who, through his self-defense in court, reveals a different, even contradictory, view of the justice presented in The Republic. In this paper, the full argument of justice from The Republic will be examined, as well as the possible inconsistencies between The Republic and The Apology.

Plato’s account of Socrates’ defense against charges of corrupting the youth and heresy, reveal the ancient teacher’s view of justice as fairness and support of rule of law. In the Apology, Socrates faces a moral dilemma: to either accept his punishment for crimes he did not commit or to accept the assistance of his friends and escape death by the hand of the state. His choice to accept death in order to maintain rule of law reveals his belief of justice. He beliefs his punishment to be just not because he committed the crimes but because his sentence came through a legal process to which he consented. By sparing his life, he would weaken the justice system of Athens which he values above his own existence. This difference between the two men’s beliefs regarding justice draws the sharpest contrast in their views of effective leadership and government.

Socrates was a former infantryman, having fought in three campaigns during the war with Sparta, so it is no surprise that he believed justice should not be invoked by the citizens’ pleading. He

Socrates argues about the complex question about whether it is better to suffer injustice or to do injustice. This means for example, to kill, or to be killed. Suffering injustice is essentially being the victim of a crime; while doing injustice puts you in the position of a perpetrator. There are differences in answering the question one way or another: one receiving the injustice and one dispensing it. In our world today, there are an immense amount of tragedies. Ranging from school shootings, to terrorist bombings.

This paper argues that Socrates makes a plausible case for justice. Socrates raised two main questions in the first two books of Plato’s Republic, what is justice? And why should we act justly? Thrasymachus and Glaucon both have different and more negative views of justice than Socrates. Throughout books one and two, Socrates, Glaucon and Thrasymachus go back and forth discussing the definition and application of justice in society. He starts his discussions with Glaucon and Thrasymachus by stating simply, “What is justice?”

In the dialogue “Crito”, the ancient Greek philosopher Plato depicted a conversation that demonstrated Socrates belief that it is better to suffer from an injustice than to commit an injustice against authorities. This is a central argument in the dialogue that when examined carefully reveals that Socrates strongly believed that experts of authority should be respected and feared above all others (11), as well as the belief that committing an injustice can adversely interfere with one’s soul. In this paper, I will discuss the purpose of authority and morality, and by breaking the law and returning injustice for injustice, it will inflict harm upon people that should least be harmed (20).

From an early age, we are all taught to be good. More accurately, what we learn is justice, the defining difference between right and wrong. We grow to understand that justice is not just an idea or something we should do, but something that everyone in the world understands and subscribes to. However, at some point in our lives we often waver in how just we are, questioning if being just is really so important. In Book two of The Republic, Plato’s account of the conversation between Socrates and Glaucon and Adiemantus outlines this very question. Glaucon and Adiemantus push Socrates to give reason for justice beyond the usual argument, creating for an interesting breakdown and response concerning justice. In this paper I will show that while Glaucon and Adiemantus are valid in their criticism of justice, however they are wrong to reject justice because, as Socrates begins to show, justice is necessary for society to properly function.