Crito, I owe a cock to Asclepius; will you remember to pay the debt? Also, Socrates should not worry about the risk or the financial cost to his friends; these they are willing to pay, and they have also arranged to find Socrates a pleasant life in exile.
Here at last Crito is considering more substantial issues than remorse or the negative opinions of others. We will discuss premises 3 and 4 when considering argument A.
Would it be Right to disobey the laws to escape from jail without official discharge? He says that Crito overlooks the possibility that his friends would be both willing and capable of bringing his children up. Socrates extends the analogy to deciding on what the right way is to act.
At that time, a ship was sailing on a sacred mission and no executions were to be performed during its absence. Since the Laws exist as one entity, to break one would be to break them all, and in doing so, Socrates would cause them great harm.
At this point, Socrates introduces the voice of the Laws of Athens, which speaks to him and proceeds to explain why it would be unjust for him to leave his cell.
If I escape from jail, then the laws of Athens and thus the city of Athens will be destroyed. What will they think if Socrates is not responsible for his children?
Socrates, more than most, should be in accord with this contract, as he has lived a happy seventy years fully content with the Athenian way of life. Crito informs Socrates that he is well-acquainted with the guard and has done him a certain benefaction. Doing unjust actions harms the soul.
Socrates alone retained his calmness: I return your good wishes, and will do as you bid. It is better to die than to live with a ruined soul.
Yes, Crito, and they of whom you speak are right in doing thus, for they think that they will gain by the delay; but I am right in not doing thus, for I do not think that I should gain anything by drinking the poison a little later; I should be sparing and saving a life which is already gone: The Third Premise 49ea: To break an agreement is an unjust action 3.
He points out that pursuing goodness is how Socrates professes to lead his life, and that a good man would see that his children are cared for. Since the Laws exist as one entity, to break one would be to break them all, and in doing so, Socrates would cause them great harm.
To harm others is to harm my soul because to harm others is unjust, and doing unjust actions harms my soul. In the Phaedo, Plato tells of a last dialogue by Socrates. And so fare you well, and try to bear lightly what must needs be; you know my errand.
Be quiet, then, and have patience. How does this latter point relate to the first premise? Socrates makes both of these points later. He made a tacit agreement to follow the laws of Athens because he lived under them for seventy years, raised his children under them, and did not try to persuade the city to change them.
In that case Socrates would be benefiting the city by escaping because the result of his action would be a more secure jail. Socrates points out that by escaping, he would be breaking the Laws. Crito tells Socrates that if he follows through with the execution, people will assume that Crito and friends were too cheap to finance an escape.
I will argue that Socrates has the stronger arguments. By appealing to the opinion of "the many," Crito seems to be committing the Ad Populum Fallacy i.CRITO Crito, as reported by Plato, is an account by where Crito is attempting to influence Socrates that it is just to escape from prison to avoid certain death by execution.
Socrates' argument directly relates to the laws of the state and the role of the individual within it. A short summary of Plato's Crito. This free synopsis covers all the crucial plot points of Crito. Welcome to the new SparkNotes!
Your book-smartest friend just got a makeover. The dialogue takes place in Socrates' prison cell, where he awaits execution. He is visited before dawn by his old friend Crito, who has made arrangements to smuggle. A Critique of the Crito and an Argument for Philosophical Anarchism by Forrest Cameranesi In this essay I will present a summary and critique of Plato’s dialogue Crito, focusing especially on Socrates’ arguments in favor.
After undermining Crito’s appeal to the opinion of the many, Socrates starts the central argument of the dialogue. Socrates emphasizes that what follows might not be acceptable to the many – this claim explains in retrospective the importance of arguing against the relevance/importance of the majority’s opinion.
Begin by introducing students to Socrates and Plato, Point out to students that, in some sense, three characters contribute to the argument in Crito: Socrates, Crito, and the personification of the Law, whom Socrates introduces as an imaginary character.
Have the students consider the effect of this personification of The Law upon the argument. And note also how Crito's own opinion changed during the course of the argument. What consequences might this have for "dialogues" concerning right and wrong?
In the Phaedo, Plato tells of a last dialogue by Socrates.Download