Socrates' defense in Crito echoes the social contract theory, which reminds us that we, in our conscious decision to remain in a state, agree to uphold the moral, political, and legal obligations of that state in exchange for protection, security, and stability; in the case of non-citizens, this notion rings especially true as those who lack citizenship are morally bound to the obligations of the state from which they seek natural rights and privileges. Socrates' defense in Crito serves as a reminder
Socrates claims in Plato’s Crito that “the most important thing is not life, but the good life” (48b). He issued this statement while responding to Crito when he suggested to him that he should escape and go into exile instead of allowing the law to prosecute him for what he did not do. Socrates wanted Crito to understand that he was not ready to break the laws of Athens. Because the Laws existed as a single entity, to break one of them simply meant to break all of them which means that if he agreed
Question 2: Who was right: Socrates or Crito? Why were they right? Known as the father of philosophy, Socrates, a proud Greek Athenian, strived to understand and answer the fundamental questions of education, politics, and ethics. At the age of seventy, Socrates was charged before an Athenian widely held court for not believing in the Olympian gods (impiety) and the corruption of youth. Despite the masterful and witty defense (apologia), Socrates could not convince his jury of fellow Athenian citizens
Zachary DesJarlais Essay Assignment #1 Introductory Ethics In Apology, Socrates appears in court for what would seem to be an unjust trail. During the processions, he states that any law denying him the right to pursue his life mission of practicing philosophy would be ignored. Later, in Crito, Socrates finds himself imprisoned and awaiting death. Crito, a close friend, finds the philosopher, and begs him to escape certain death. It is implied that the two would be able to escape easily, and seemingly
fundamental contradiction that arises in the two dialogues by Socrates; Crito and Apology by Plato. In the Apology we get to meet the defiant Socrates who declares during his trial that he would not stop practicing philosophy in contradiction to the jury’s order if he was to be acquitted on condition never to practice philosophy ever again. Socrates claimed that he would choose to obey the gods as long as he was alive instead of obeying men. Here Socrates can be seen to present a defiant argument for disobedience
Plato’s Apology and Crito discuss both Socrates’s response to the charges brought against him by various citizens of Athens, as well as the reasoning behind his choice to obey the city by accepting the punishment that was handed down to him. At first glance, Socrates’s sharp words may be viewed as disobedient to Athens. After careful evaluation of Socrates’s speeches and subsequent actions, it is vibrantly clear that Socrates is not undermining the law of the city; he is undermining those who make
David Thoreau and Socrates, both grealy renowned for their work, serve as examples of how the concept of civil disobedience can be applied in contrary, as well as comparatively, manners, without defying justice. The forms in which Thoreau practices civil disobedience go along the lines
be applied to Socrates, a wise philosopher, who is on death row, for disobeying the law in the novel “Five Dialogues”. revised by John M. Cooper. Socrates believes that if he broke an unjust law, then one should still be penalized for these action, even the law that is being broken is considered unjust. Socrates would rather die than to actually escape from his wrong doing. Is Socrates theory of the situation infact not conclusive. In this paper, I will argue that in fact Socrates’ argument of what
of Socrates, the value of piety and justice is emphasized repeatedly. To Socrates, it is never valid to knowingly commit an unjust action, as it does more harm than good. In other words, the most important thing in life is a good life that maintains the health of the body and psyche. Therefore, after failing to be acquitted from his trial, he must now determine whether it is just or unjust to escape without the approval of fellow Athenians. In his examination of possible liberation, Socrates rationalizes
Plato is a dialogue between Euthyphro and Socrates. It is a discussion between the two of them and the subject is “piety”. Socrates asks Euthyphro to define “piety” as Euthyphro claims to have a knowledge of this subject and on Socrates request, he attempts to define it. Socrates does not agree with Euthyphro’s version of piety and keeps pushing him to accurately define it and finally at one point Euthyphro says he is in a hurry and walks away. Socrates is neither agreeing with Euthyphro’s definition