An Honorable Death Are you willing to be prosecuted as an honorable person or run away from death to live the remaining time of your life as a coward? This was the case for Socrates, an honorable philosopher, that chose prosecution for his beliefs in his own motherland by his own people because of the threat he was becoming to the leaders. It was a difficult decision for Socrates friends and family to accept his prosecution but according to Crito, one of Socrates friends, he decided to persuade him to escape and avoid death. Crito is not just a friend but also a long-time follower and will make any sacrifice to save Socrates life. Crito gives as many arguments as he can to persuade Socrates to escaping as a result, Socrates gives counter
…show more content…
Crito’s perspective is that no man should commit any crimes or wrong doings for if he does it will destroy his body. Socrates then reiterates his statement by saying, “Are we to say that we are never intentionally to do wrong, or that in one way we ought and in another way we ought not to do wrong, or is doing wrong always dishonorable…” (Plato 1). Socrates is in a way trying to point out the flaws in Critos statement by asking rhetorical questions. He is trying to question whether or not a man doing something bad is always unjust or if there is good motive behind it. By saying that all wrong doings are unjust is disregarding those who have good intentions and reasons for commiting something bad. When Critos is explaining that no man should injure or hurt another Socrates answers, “then we ought not to retaliate or render evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him” (Plato 1). Crito is left thinking as Socrates clearly points out the flaws in his argument. This exemplifies Critos illogical statements and how he contradicts himself because when explaining that no one should do wrong he is at the same time persuading Socrates to escape the prison which would be going against the law and what he is proposing as well. Not only that but he is implying that if someone is ever faced with evil they are to
Crito’s perspective is that no man should commit any crimes or wrong doings for if he does it will destroy his body. Socrates then reiterates his statement by saying, “Are we to say that we are never intentionally to do wrong, or that in one way we ought and in another way we ought not to do wrong, or is doing wrong always dishonorable…” (Plato 1). Socrates is in a way trying to point out the flaws in Critos statement by asking rhetorical questions. He is trying to question whether or not a man doing something bad is always unjust or if there is good motive behind it. By saying that all wrong doings are unjust is disregarding those who have good intentions and reasons for commiting something bad. When Critos is explaining that no man should injure or hurt another Socrates answers, “then we ought not to retaliate or render evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him” (Plato 1). Crito is left thinking as Socrates clearly points out the flaws in his argument. This exemplifies Critos illogical statements and how he contradicts himself because when explaining that no one should do wrong he is at the same time persuading Socrates to escape the prison which would be going against the law and what he is proposing as well. Not only that but he is implying that if someone is ever faced with evil they are to