Crito Paper
Dominic Corridore
The citations are a bit off, since I am missing quite a bit of the text. I am using my dad’s Plato book, which is different.
Body 1- Socrates Arguments: Since we have already provided background information about this case and all is clear, I would like to suggest to examine the arguments however note that we will not enhance or attempt to destroy Socrates’s arguments at this moment. The sub arguments are as listed: the opinion of the many and experts (Crito, 44c- 44e), the central moral principle (Crito, 48a- 48e, 49a-49d) (One should never do a wrong), and finally obligation to the law (Crito, 51a- 54a). I understand there are much more arguments, however those arguments fall under one of these three categories. …show more content…
The law anticipates an objection to further intensify his arguments; the city wronged Socrates and it was not right. The laws respond with three main arguments: the patron argument (Crito, 51e), the parent argument (Crito, 51a-51c), and the agreement argument (Crito, 52e). Let us explain the logical steps or statements Socrates takes to answer the parent argument: first, the state is Socrates’s parent, everyone ought to obey their parents, if he were to escape Socrates would be dishonoring his parent, and hence Socrates should not escape. This argument is clearly a metaphor. Now let us explicate the steps Socrates took to prove the patron argument; the state is Socrates’s supporter, we should obey our supporters, if Socrates were to escape, he would disobey his supporter, hence Socrates should not escape. Socrates believes we should obey our supporters because we feel beholden to those who are generous. Now let us clarify the agreement argument of …show more content…
Hence let us proceed and investigate Socrates’s central moral principle: One shall never commit a wrong. (Crito, 51a- 54a) Socrates emphasizes that every act of injustice harms the wrongdoer himself as the actions corrupt his soul. Additionally, it is not the consequences of the wrong actions that harm us, but the very actions themselves. These wrong acts eat away at our soul. I personally have problems with the structure of this argument; clearly this argument is based upon the principle that every injustice injures the soul and every justice improves the soul. Let us think outside of the box and apply examples where this certainly does not function. If Dubez Bear was a citizen in Africa with unknown persecuted Egyptian Pagans in his house and the Egyptian police came and asked Dubez bear if he had any Pagans, what should he do? Should he say a lie and save the Egyptians or tell the truth and let them die? Socrates logic suggests that one shall never commit a wrong hence Socrates would suggest option two. He would not only suggest that you would be committing a wrong action if you saved them, but break the just agreement between the state. Let us not only disprove the central moral principle but also eliminate the agreement argument. I would suggest option one; we have to weigh which action is more immoral. Effectively option two
Dominic Corridore
The citations are a bit off, since I am missing quite a bit of the text. I am using my dad’s Plato book, which is different.
Body 1- Socrates Arguments: Since we have already provided background information about this case and all is clear, I would like to suggest to examine the arguments however note that we will not enhance or attempt to destroy Socrates’s arguments at this moment. The sub arguments are as listed: the opinion of the many and experts (Crito, 44c- 44e), the central moral principle (Crito, 48a- 48e, 49a-49d) (One should never do a wrong), and finally obligation to the law (Crito, 51a- 54a). I understand there are much more arguments, however those arguments fall under one of these three categories. …show more content…
The law anticipates an objection to further intensify his arguments; the city wronged Socrates and it was not right. The laws respond with three main arguments: the patron argument (Crito, 51e), the parent argument (Crito, 51a-51c), and the agreement argument (Crito, 52e). Let us explain the logical steps or statements Socrates takes to answer the parent argument: first, the state is Socrates’s parent, everyone ought to obey their parents, if he were to escape Socrates would be dishonoring his parent, and hence Socrates should not escape. This argument is clearly a metaphor. Now let us explicate the steps Socrates took to prove the patron argument; the state is Socrates’s supporter, we should obey our supporters, if Socrates were to escape, he would disobey his supporter, hence Socrates should not escape. Socrates believes we should obey our supporters because we feel beholden to those who are generous. Now let us clarify the agreement argument of …show more content…
Hence let us proceed and investigate Socrates’s central moral principle: One shall never commit a wrong. (Crito, 51a- 54a) Socrates emphasizes that every act of injustice harms the wrongdoer himself as the actions corrupt his soul. Additionally, it is not the consequences of the wrong actions that harm us, but the very actions themselves. These wrong acts eat away at our soul. I personally have problems with the structure of this argument; clearly this argument is based upon the principle that every injustice injures the soul and every justice improves the soul. Let us think outside of the box and apply examples where this certainly does not function. If Dubez Bear was a citizen in Africa with unknown persecuted Egyptian Pagans in his house and the Egyptian police came and asked Dubez bear if he had any Pagans, what should he do? Should he say a lie and save the Egyptians or tell the truth and let them die? Socrates logic suggests that one shall never commit a wrong hence Socrates would suggest option two. He would not only suggest that you would be committing a wrong action if you saved them, but break the just agreement between the state. Let us not only disprove the central moral principle but also eliminate the agreement argument. I would suggest option one; we have to weigh which action is more immoral. Effectively option two