Socrates 's Argument Against The Death Penalty

1189 Words Sep 9th, 2016 5 Pages
Socrates was found guilty of the following accusations; corrupting the youth, believing in different gods, or being an atheist, and for “examining” the heavens above and the earth below. He inclined for a fine that could be paid instead of facing banishment, however, the court decided to give him the death penalty. There he slept in prison when Criton approached and attempted to persuade him to escape. He declined as it would go against his logic and reasoning he taught his whole life. Was it “just” of him to accept the death penalty that was catalyzed by absurd accusations? This paper will argue that it was Socrates “right” to accept the death penalty due to the consent he made with the society he resided in. When Crito and Socrates engaged in a conversation, Crito comes up with several arguments that support the idea of Socrates escaping prison. First, he argues that if Socrates dies, he will lose a friend that cannot be replaced. The people that did not know their relationship as friends would assume that he did not care to free him due to the payment of money. Second, Crito suggests that there are people who are willing to pay. The guards are corrupt and if they get the amount of money they demanded, they will let him escape. That will induce no harm to his friends, which worried Socrates. Third, he argues by accepting the death penalty Socrates would be acting unjustly in the manner that his nemesis was able to wrongly accuse him. He will not only betray himself…
Open Document