Introduction Socrates argues in the Crito that he shouldn't escape his death sentence because it isn't just. Crito is distressed by Socrates reasoning and wishes to convince him to escape since Crito and friends can provide the ransom the warden demands. If not for himself, Socrates should escape for the sake of his friends, sons, and those who benefit from his teaching. Socrates and Crito's argument proceeds from this point. As an aside, I would like to note that, though I believe that a further objection could be made to Socrates conclusions in “The Philosopher's Defense”, due to space considerations, I didn't write the fourth section “Failure of the Philosopher's Defense”.
I.Explanation of the Philospher's Argument Socrates'
…show more content…
The only “benefit” that might be put forward in defense of the death sentence is that Socrates would not be able to continue shaming the orators of Athens. The subtext of Socrates' trial in the Apology showed a man begging the crowd for some legitimate reason that could justify his being on trial in the first place, since none of his named accusers' claims appeared to be true from his dialogues with them (Apology, 33d). His pleas are met with silence, a jury of five hundred men shifting uncomfortably in their seats with the knowledge they were sentencing a man to death for being annoying. This is indeed the “real” reason that he was convicted - because he was annoying, especially to the ruling orators who were routinely shamed by him (Apology, 29e). So, perhaps his death does convey a benefit to someone – those who would have been shamed by him for being less than virtuous - but this is not a benefit worth defending. Socrates would no doubt agree with this, since he refused to discontinue exhorting people to be virtuous in his own trial, despite knowing it probably meant a conviction. In addition to Socrates' death not benefiting anyone, his breaking the law would not have the catastrophic effects that he claims. One man breaking the law does not break a system of justice. If we are to consider that the system of justice is in place to benefit people, and his sentence does not benefit anyone, his escape to another city doesn't constitute a major breach in the
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.
Socrates should not escape from prison to avoid his death sentence because he would be breaking the law which ultimately led to him straying away from his own principles. He was a person who believed in what was just and doing what was morally correct. If he were to escape from prison, he would essentially be harming others and the State. He thought through harming others, he would be harming himself and his soul, so Socrates did not believe in harming others and thought it was unjust and morally wrong. Even though Socrates had the opportunity to escape and he was given plenty of reasons from his friends to do so, he did not want to go against what he believes in and his philosophy. He could not live a life where he would have to stop
In The Crito by Socrates, both Crito and Socrates present arguments, one that Socrates should escape prison, and one that he should not. Crito’s argument contains logic fallacies that undermine his argument and make it weak. Therefore, Socrates argument that he should remain in prison and face his death is valid and strong, and is better than Crito’s.
Socrates’s offering to the jury is to tell the truth, despite not admitting that it is simply his truth and thus not the entire truth, he is not able to convey to the jury the importance of not killing him. A bad citizen would try to undermine the jury by committing perjury and disobeying the decision of the court. He however, wouldn’t even like it if the jury committed perjury on his behalf, “Socrates says what he means on the stand hold honesty above all else, so when he is offered a chance to escape from his execution he does not take it. By refusing to escape, he reiterates how sticking to agreements is important to him. Socrates' commitment to the societal agreement between him and the city where he is allowed to live in
In Plato’s Crito Socrates argues that it would be wrong for him to escape from prison. Speaking to his friend Cirto, Socrates explains that escaping from prison would go against many of his beliefs. Socrates believes in seeking the truth, not repaying a wrong with another wrong, and obeying the laws of the state. He also states that escaping from prison would ruin his reputation and is in best interest for everyone. Crito brings up many arguments to Socrates trying to convince him to escape. Crito tries to appeal to Socrates in many different ways and bombards him with many arguments. Every argument that Crito brings up to Socrates, he answers with carful thinking and analysis. Crito appeals to Socrates emotions by stating that his friends and family will be lost without him. He
The execution of Socrates is not justified. The charges that were brought against Socrates had taught all his adult life, without molestation, in a state that was well known for its democracy and fairness. The Athenians were not brutal people and executions were rare. Socrates had to drink a poisonous hemlock in order to die, a non-brutal method of death. We must understand Athens past in order to make judgment. I believe that the form of punishment was very extreme in this impressionable city and very uncommon and unalike the portrayed view of the typical Athenian. Socrates
A man facing an unjust execution is presented with another option: escape from prison and flee to another providence. Most men would eagerly take this chance to prolong their lives and continue their journey on earth. Most men would do anything to get revenge for the wrong that has been done to them. However, most men are not like Socrates. Socrates did not plead his case by eliciting pity from the jury for an old man and his poor family. He did not beg for a different sentence that would allow him to live. Instead, he let the jury come to its own conclusion while acting with virtue and integrity. He held fast to his principles by remaining in prison to face his execution because that is how a good and just person would behave. Socrates’ decision not to escape in Crito is consistent with his principle that the good and just person never does harm to a large extent because accepting his verdict allows him to reinforce the sanctity of law and to set a prime example for his peers.
Socrates adjusts these theories to the option to escape from his captors and abandon their conclusion on his future. Crito begins to understand Socrates view in his suggestion. "the only valid consideration is whether we should be acting rightly in giving with the escape, or whether in truth we shall do wrong in doing all this." (49c) Socrates concludes that if he followed Crito's advice he would be committing several dishonest actions against his own society that were
To this question, first Socrates says that he should not revenge injustice. Because doing injustice is bad in any circumstances (Crito 49b), to return injustice just because of having injustice done onto himself would bad also (Crito 49c). Therefore Socrates should not commit injustice just to get even with Athens. Injustice is bad because it harms, and disobedience to the law would harm the city (Crito 50b); so it seems that to disobey the law would be an injustice. But why should Socrates obey the law of the city? Socrates reasons that since the city has done him great benefactions, such as giving birth to his life, taking care of his physical upbringing and his education, and granting him long years of benefits from the legal system (Crito 50e - 51c), Socrates owns the state a strong duty of gratitude just as a child would own to his father. One of those duties is to obey the state (like how a child obeys his parents), which always has included the possibility of death such as in times of war (Crito 51b). Socrates should obey the city because he has made an agreement to do so. This agreement is the social contract that he has implicitly accepted and lived under for 70 years. This contract is legitimate because Socrates had a thorough understanding of the legal system (Crito 51e - 52a), he did not leave the city when he was given the fair chance all his life (Crito 51 c-e), and that he
crime in the pursuit of power is to violate the social contract of the state, and to wrong all of the people who reside within it. Socrates would be especially against this considering it was his defiance to violate the social contract of Athens, but his respect for the law post-sentencing, that caused his execution, which he embraced rather than feared. Even in Crito when Socrates had the opportunity to usurp his jailers to save his own life he opted not to violate the law of Athens, for that would be disingenuous to the state he’d participated in his whole life. If Socrates had to be punished by the state for breaking its laws, then the breaking of a state’s laws should not lead to someone, especially an aspiring leader, being celebrated
Crito desperately wants Socrates to escape his death. He wants to help Socrates escape jail, or he wants to pay off someone of greater authority. Crito gives a few reasons as to why Socrates should escape his death. Crito tells Socrates he is a great friend that can never be replaced. Crito feels Socrates should save his life for his children. He worries who will help educate
He also explains to Crito that the citizen is bound to the laws like a child is bound to a parent, and so to go against the laws would be like striking a parent. Rather than simply break the laws and escape, Socrates should try to persuade the laws to let him go. These laws present the citizen's duty to them in the form of a kind of social contract. By choosing to live in Athens, a citizen is endorsing the laws, and is willing to follower by them. Therefore, if he was to break from prison now, having so consistently validated the social contract, he would be making himself an outlaw who would not be welcome in any other civilized state for the rest of his life. Furthermore when he dies, he will be harshly judged in the underworld for behaving unjustly toward his city's laws. In this way, Socrates chooses not to attempt escape but he dies as a martyr, not for himself, but for his city and its system of justice.
He knows that if he escaped, it would be a crime. I find it ironic that he would argue his trial, but not argue his punishment from the trial he argued. The bottom line with Socrates and laws is that he probably did not live by them very closely. It is my belief that Socrates was a good person with good morals. He probably saw laws for the weak minded, and he was certain he was not weak minded. The question of whether he would abide by these laws is that he would and he did. He died for them.
Socrates would rather be punished or die before he breaks the laws that were set forth by his state, and this he says later in the same passage, “I should run any risk on the side of law and justice rather than join you. (Cahn pg. 38 Apology b10-c2).”
As Socrates awaits his upcoming execution; he is visited before dawn by a close old friend Crito. Crito has made arrangements to help Socrates escape from prison. Socrates is grateful to his old friend for his willing to help aide him in the escape. However, Socrates is quite willing to await his execution. Crito tries to change Socrates mind about escaping by presenting him with several arguments. The first is that if Socrates choices to stay, his death will reflect poorly on Crito. The people will think that Crito did nothing to save his friend. If Socrates is worried about the risk or the financial cost to Crito; it’s an expense that he is willing to pay, and that he made arrangements for Socrates to live a life of exile in a pleasant