Socrates Arguments Crito
Ryan Horler
What arguments are presented in the Crito for the conclusion that Socrates would be acting unjustly if he escaped from prison and evaded his sentence? Do you find them convincing?
The Platonic 'Death of Socrates Dialogues', are a quartet of important and influential conversations written by Plato, but told through the eyes of his mentor Socrates. Written in 386BC, they tell the story surrounding the Socrates being charged by the state for piety and corruption of the youth.
They are conversations between Socrates, his friends, and his censors, the rulers of Athens. Socrates has found guilty of these crimes and after failing to convince the Athenian statesmen that he had been wrongfully accused, and sentenced to death. The third story from the quartet is 'Crito' where
Socrates chats with his wealthy friend Crito, who after bribing a guard, offers to help Socrates escape his sentence. Socrates refuses, and the dialogue throws up a few moral arguments where he explains his reasons to Crito,
Socrates argues that it is necessary for the state to punish him as he has not acted within the laws
that govern Athens. After all, he has faced the serious charge of worshipping false gods, and by
passing these views on to his young followers, further charge with corrupting them. As he is a
highly respected citizen within Athens, he thinks that he should lead by example and take his
punishment. After all, he knew the laws and more than likely and knew what punishment he would
incur if caught. No one is above the law. The laws are set by the state in order for citizens to follow
a code of behaviour. Failure to adhere to such laws could lead to destruction of the state and it is
right that the government made and example of him. He thinks that if laws are broken, then the
ruling class should have the powers to deal with the lawbreakers, otherwise what is the point having
the laws, or indeed the state who
What arguments are presented in the Crito for the conclusion that Socrates would be acting unjustly if he escaped from prison and evaded his sentence? Do you find them convincing?
The Platonic 'Death of Socrates Dialogues', are a quartet of important and influential conversations written by Plato, but told through the eyes of his mentor Socrates. Written in 386BC, they tell the story surrounding the Socrates being charged by the state for piety and corruption of the youth.
They are conversations between Socrates, his friends, and his censors, the rulers of Athens. Socrates has found guilty of these crimes and after failing to convince the Athenian statesmen that he had been wrongfully accused, and sentenced to death. The third story from the quartet is 'Crito' where
Socrates chats with his wealthy friend Crito, who after bribing a guard, offers to help Socrates escape his sentence. Socrates refuses, and the dialogue throws up a few moral arguments where he explains his reasons to Crito,
Socrates argues that it is necessary for the state to punish him as he has not acted within the laws
that govern Athens. After all, he has faced the serious charge of worshipping false gods, and by
passing these views on to his young followers, further charge with corrupting them. As he is a
highly respected citizen within Athens, he thinks that he should lead by example and take his
punishment. After all, he knew the laws and more than likely and knew what punishment he would
incur if caught. No one is above the law. The laws are set by the state in order for citizens to follow
a code of behaviour. Failure to adhere to such laws could lead to destruction of the state and it is
right that the government made and example of him. He thinks that if laws are broken, then the
ruling class should have the powers to deal with the lawbreakers, otherwise what is the point having
the laws, or indeed the state who