Abstract An analysis of Plato's Crito that focuses on Socrates willingness to accept the punishment handed out by his judges and his reasons why. It also looks at Socrates view of himself as a victim of man, not of the law.
From the Paper "In Plato's Crito Socrates argues that the authority of the city reigns supreme and citizens must obey its laws and orders. Socrates tells Crito that he should answer the following question as if it were the State asking it of him Are we right in saying ..."
Abstract The paper is a philosophical discussion about Socrates' belief in the importance of the state over the individual, or individual family interests. The paper comments that Socrates is unwavering in this opinion, to the point that he accepts his own death sentence and does not try to flee. Commenting on this, the paper continues by relating that the conflict between the 'Apology' and the 'Crito', in many minds is that Socrates contradicts himself. He does this by stating in the 'Apology' that if there were a law made that stopped him from practising philosophy he would break it. The paper then goes on to discuss why, in fact, there is no contradiction.
From the Paper "Through the whole of the Apology Socrates stresses the importance of remaining true to the process of the trial, as the process of the trial is just, as it is a reflection of the power and wisdom of the state, even when applied by unjust men, seeking their own interests. Furthermore, the oaths of the judges are sacred, and should therefore not be swayed with entreaties and persuasive behavior on the part of the accused, as this goes against the nature of the self and the validity of the state. In the Apology Socrates is reported to have said to those who would question why he did not act as other men and defend himself with family and emotional spectacle."
Abstract This paper discusses the dialogue between Socrates and Crito, in Plato's work "Crito", where Crito tries to convince Socrates to flee Athens to avoid his imminent execution and Socrates argues against flight. The paper then explores the strength of Socrates and Crito's arguments, especially stressing the extreme differences in the morality of their positions. The paper concludes that the "Crito" presents Socrates as maintaining his philosophical ways to the end, even in the face of his own death.
From the Paper "Crito opens with his strongest point, a plea to Socrates to think of him, particularly of what people would think of him if he didn't employ every resource available to him to save his friend in his time of greatest need. He then strengthens his point by drawing a comparison between his Socrates' other friends position of being slandered if Socrates were to be executed with Socrates' own current position of being killed based mainly on the opinions of the masses."
Abstract This paper focuses on Plato's "Crito" and attempts to bring about a clear understanding of Plato's writing by emphasizing the two characters namely, Crito and Socrates and the conversation between the two men. The paper reviews how Socrates is able to convince Crito on his reasons and that evil shall never pay off. Throughout, the strong emphasis is on the abiding of ones principles no matter how tough the circumstances.
From the Paper "It is often said that man is the root of all evil and it is man alone who harms his fellow men by propagating evil by doing them wrong and inflicting injustice upon them. In The Crito, Plato has proven this concept wrong by introducing to the audience two characters namely, Crito and Socrates. The main reason behind The Crito is to display the character of Socrates, as a man of virtue and as a good citizen who has been unjustly condemned and in return has to face death. Even though many people would not choose the path which Socrates eventually chose for himself but the question which remains for many to answer is that, Even though Socrates was successful in standing up to his own principles but had he been right if he had chosen to escape prison? "
Abstract This paper examines the conflicts between the dialogues of "Allegory of the Cave" and "Divided Line" from Socrates' works "Apology" and "Crito". It looks at how in "Apology", Socrates stipulates that if the court would discharge him on the condition that he no longer practice philosophy, he would not obey the law and how in the "Crito" he argues that the laws must be obeyed, firstly because if they are not then a city cannot function and secondly because escaping would constitute and unjust act. It analyses whether it is possible for Socrates to disobey the court's ruling in the "Apology" and argue that one must never disobey a law in the "Crito" .
From the Paper "Socrates also likens the relationship between citizen and state to that of child and parent (Crito, 50d). To avoid punishment would be akin to that of not abiding by the decision one's parents made, effectively claiming that the state had no right to judge one in the first place. Socrates points out that if one thought this then one is free to leave the state, but by remaining there they effectively sign a contract to abide by the state's rulings (Crito, 52e). Socrates points out that he is not an equal to the state's laws, but an inferior and must abide by their decisions."
Abstract Plato's "Crito" is a dialogue between Socrates and his friend Crito occurring the day before Socrates is to be executed. In this dialogue, Crito approaches Socrates with an offer of a possible escape, but it is not immediately accepted. Socrates questions whether the motive behind or reasons for the escape are good, and this leads to a major concept surrounding the whole dialogue--the concept of the definition of 'good'. The paper shows that Socrates makes it clear that to be good is to be virtuous, honorable, fair, and just, while everything else is secondary. While keeping with his definition of good, Socrates also believes that the law of the state is good, as he himself states that he would not have resided in the city were it not so. This premise is the key to Socrates? argument that because the law is good, to break or disobey the law is bad or evil, and thus every citizen who chooses to live under the law should strive to be good ? thus leading a good life. It is this that obliges Socrates to stay in jail and suffer his punishment, as it is people who have wronged him and not the law. Thus, in his afterlife, this will be well looked-upon. This essay disagrees with some parts of this argument and sets out to show that Socrates is not completely correct in his opinions.
From the Paper "In a sense the contract that Socrates describes does exist, and citizens of a country or state are obliged to follow and respect the laws for that state. But if the laws are unfair or unjust, every citizen should have a right to act on that, in the form of appeals to politicians, or at an extreme, rebellion or revolts against the state. It should not be wrong to stand up against a state that is treating people unfairly or unjustly. With respect to Socrates specifically, he has been wronged by the justice system, and when he asks Crito "ought a man to do what he admits to be right, or ought he betray the right"? that man should do definitely do what he thinks is right."
Abstract This paper takes a critical look at Socrates and Crito in the Platonic document Crito emphasizing the points brought up by Socrates pertaining to justice and social contracts. It includes personal comments of the author and those of critics through the ages.
From the Paper "Socrates begins the inquiry by reiterating the fact that we must never act unjustly voluntarily. "Ought we never to act unjustly voluntarily" Or may we act unjustly in some ways, and not in others? Is it the case, as we have often agreed in former times, that it is never either good or honorable to act unjustly? Or have all our former conclusions been overturned in these few days; and did we at our age fail to recognize all along, when we were seriously conversing with each other, that we were no better than children? Is not what we used to say most certainly the truth, whether the multitude agrees with us or not? Is not acting unjustly evil and shameful in ever case, whether we incur a heavier or a lighter punishment as the consequence?? ?(Plato, 58)? This whole passage demonstrates Socrates? desire to do what is just and not what he wants to do. He knows that he would be doing something that he said he should never do, and does not want to be unjust by being a hypocrite. "
Abstract This paper is a criticism of Socrates' argument for civil obedience, as presented in the "Crito". The paper attempts to disprove Socrates' points that one should never do wrong and that it is always wrong to disobey the state. The paper concludes that Socrates does not provide solid or reasonable evidence to support the claims he makes in "Crito", and therefore, his argument for civil obedience invalid.
From the Paper "A similar inconsistency is seen when Socrates argues that the opinion of the many should be disregarded because the many do not know what is right or wrong, just or unjust, good or evil, or honorable and dishonorable. The problem is that Socrates is accepting the law as knowing what as best, without proving that the law is based on right and wrong. Since the law represents the opinion of the many, it is especially questionable that the law would know right from wrong. This is an idea asserted by Plato where he argued that the leaders of society do not know what it right or wrong or what is good. Based on this, he said that "the right sort of state cannot exist unless philosophers rule it" (Irwin 107). This shows that the law should not be accepted as right, but should be proven as being right before it is completely accepted. Socrates does not make this attempt, which represents a flaw in his thinking."
Abstract This paper discusses how the purpose of Plato's "Crito" seems to be to exhibit the character of Socrates in one light only, not as the philosopher, fulfilling a divine mission and trusting in the will of Heaven, but simply as the good citizen, who, having been unjustly condemned is willing to give up his life for three reasons. It looks at how, in revisiting the already established truths with his friend and fellow philosopher Crito; Socrates makes a valid argument for seeking truth, justice and remaining a loyal citizen of Athens in the face of the greatest adversity, his death.
From the Paper " Addressing public opinion, Socrates boldly asserts that it is more important to follow the advice of the wise, in this case the assembly and accept his fate than to abide by public opinion and attempt to flee Athens. Even when it is the public who may save one from death, their favor need not be sought, for it is better to live justly and to submit to the unjust ruling of the assembly. Socrates believes that one should not care what the majority thinks because those who are reasonable people will understand. However, Crito's counter-argument to this is that the majority can cause great harm; therefore we should care what they think. "
An analysis of Socrates' idea of a 'social contract' within ancient Greek philosopher, Plato's "Crito" dialogue, focusing on the difference between public and private justice.
1,900 words (approx. 7.6 pages), 1 source, 2002, $ 71.95
Abstract In the dialogue Crito, Plato represents a debate between Socrates and his friend Crito on the subject of whether or not Socrates should flee Athens and the unjust death sentence imposed upon him by the Athenian state. Socrates' answer is of interest both philosophically and politically as it theorizes the existence of a form of "social contract" between the individual and the society of which he/she is a part that overrides any private or personal conception of justice. From a personal perspective, while Socrates has persuaded me of the validity of his argument, I do not believe it would find wide acceptance in contemporary society. This paper will argue that the key issue here is the conflict between public and private justice. In a society with a strong civic culture, the former would dominate, while in a fragmented society the latter form of justice would prevail.
Abstract Discusses Socrates's decision to reject Crito's help and remain in prison, facing the death penalty. Examines Crito's emotional argument, Socrates's reliance on reason and not emotion, Socrates's belief that he must be consistent in his adherence to truth and justice.
From the Paper "In Crito, Socrates argues against Crito, saying that he should not accept Crito's help in escaping from prison to avoid the death penalty that has been decreed. Socrates is under the death penalty for what the authorities see as his attempt to corrupt the..."
Abstract The paper states that within the "Apology" and the "Crito" several points of extreme importance to Socrates are outlined regarding the nature of civic duty. Some have said that the two works contradict one another in that in the "Apology", Socrates states that he would break the law if there were a law made that said he could no longer practice philosophy and in the "Crito" he outlines the dire responsibility to uphold the laws of the state, and in this case allow himself to be put to death, rather than fleeing. This paper argues that there is no contradiction in the messages of Socrates, as he is consistently alluding to the idea that the laws, though just, are being applied unjustly, in his conviction.
From the Paper "Socrates, believes that his responsibility to Athens, and to god is to maintain the calling set for him, he does not say he would break the law if he was to be given the option of leaving the court never to practice philosophy again, he says he would rather die than live a life contrary to God by not practicing philosophy for the betterment of the world, and of Athens. In other words, his honor is to serve God and Athens and accepting such a sentence would be contrary to both. 'Wherever a man has taken up a position because he considers it best, or has been posted there by his commander, that is where I believe he should remain, steadfast in danger, taking no account at all of death or of anything else rather than dishonor." (p. 380) Socrates believes that the people who are accusing and convicting him in his trial are abandoning the truth and therefore living contrary to God and to the state of their own souls."
Abstract This paper examines Socrates' discussions with his friends Euthyphro and Crito and his court trial in Athens. It explores the ancient Greek ideals of piety, religion and the state. The paper describes that everything Socrates has done is based on reasaon.
From the Paper "In "The Euthyphro", Socrates meets his friend Euthyphro outside the court of justice and explains how he (Socrates) has been called there to answer charges brought by Meletus. The discussion turns to the question of piety, and Euthyphro, who is considered an educated man and wise in the field of religion, states that piety is what is loved by the gods. Socrates seeks his assistance in defining piety so he can use what he learns from Euthyphro when he goes to court. The issue throughout is whether the gods love something because it is pious, or is a thing pious because the gods love that thing?"
Abstract A literary review of Socrates "The Apology" and "Crito" focusing on the issues of the individual within society. The writer reflects Socrates belief that the reason human beings come together to form a state in the first place is because human beings have certain needs which can only be fulfilled by the involvement of other people, and in the properly administered state the individual is enabled to fulfill his or her needs. Both pieces represented by the paper show the author's belief that philosophy is the highest of all callings and the aspiration of all men.
From the Paper "Plato presents his explicit statement of the relationship between the individual and society--even an unjust society--in the form of the "Apology," the statement of Socrates to the court that ultimately sentences him to death. The speech represents the conflict that often develops between the power of the state and the integrity of the individual. The court gives Socrates an out if he recants his teachings, but he will not do it. Socrates represents the primary social value of inquiry, of the pursuit of philosophy, of the examination of the meaning of life."
Tags: philosophy, mankind, humanity, social, value, political, theory
A comparative analysis of the concept of civil disobedience in Mahatma Gandhi's "The Salt March" with Plato's "Crito" and King's "Letter from the Birmingham Jail".
2,150 words (approx. 8.6 pages), 5 sources, 2002, $ 80.95
Abstract This paper will use the "Salt March" of Mahatma Gandhi in 1930 as an example of civil disobedience to be analyzed with respect to the theoretical models outlined in Plato's Crito and King's "Letter from the Birmingham Jail". It will be argued that, while there exist strong arguments against civil disobedience - most notably that it often leads to violence and civil unrest - often such acts are justified, as was Gandhi's, as a means of last resort.
