Socratic Dialogue: Crito
Uploaded by anoncollegestudent on Nov 29, 2004 |
|
|
The dialogue Crito recounts the last days of Socrates of Socrates before his execution was to take place in Athens. In the dialogue Socrates’ friend, Crito, proposes a plan for Socrates to escape from prison. Through the dialogue, Socrates considers the proposal, trying to decide is escaping would be just and morally justified. Both Socrates and Crito present arguments as to whether or not he should escape and the reasons behind each respective decision. After the examination Socrates concludes that the act of escape would be just and he would be morally unjustified and committing the act.
The first argument that Crito presents to Socrates brings up the issue of what the majority think. Crito says, “Many people who do not know you or me very well will believe I might have saved you had I been willing to give money, but that I did not care to do so.” (Grude, Pg 47) Crito’s argument is clearly concerned with his own reputation, especially with what the majority of the people of Athens would think of him. Socrates immediately rebuts Crito’s argument by saying, “why should we care so much for what the majority think?” He goes on to refute the argument by using the analogy of the physical trainer to prove his point. In matters concerning the body, the trainer’s opinion has more weight than that of the group. Socrates says in matters concerning the mind, particularly justice and injustice, things should be no different than in matters concerning the body. “We should not then think of what the majority will say about us, but what he will say who understand justice and injustice, the on, that is, and the truth itself.” (Grude, Pg 50) The argument is an important one because Socrates feels strongly about his response, not only concerning his own situation, but also concerning all matters of justice and injustice.
According to Socrates justice and truth go hand in hand. He reaffirms his beliefs from the Apology that one must never do wrong. He argues that breaking a commitment and disobeying the state is always doing a wrong. He compares his relationship to the State to relationship with a parent. He argues that the sate looked for his best interest, care d for him and his children, and made him the person that he is. He therefore ought not disobey the State. He furthers his argument by saying that disobeying the State and escaping would be committing a wrong act, and would be an injustice against the people of Athens. He says that if he escaped, he would not be able to live life the same way he was used to living. Also his sons would not be able to grow in Athens and would then be raised by strangers rather than by the State that raised him and has been loyal to him. He emphasizes that although one should not disobey the State, one can always try to persuade the State to improve is as a whole in truth and justice.
I agree with Socrates’ position in Crito. Socrates’ arguments have more foundation than Crito’s and are concerned with the well being of every person, whereas Crito’s arguments are concerned with only his image and his well being. Also, Socrates arguments can be applied to situations outside of his own. From the dialogue I gathered that the pursuit of justice and truth are and important part of ones existence. |
|
|