Socrates, or the man that Plato wrote him out to be throughout several dialogues, had not believed in the ‘law of retaliation’; he did not consider it to be just to break a law even if the reason for doing so was because he was initially wronged. This reasoning can be disputed by saying that a citizen could have justification for civil disobedience if the law was unjust to begin with. Socrates, taking on the personification as the Laws could reply to this objection by stating that a citizen is free to leave the country if their moral beliefs (moral relativism) disconnect from the laws, but that if they do stay then it is implied that it is imperative that they follow all laws of the land. In my personal viewpoint, this is not a sufficient
…show more content…
In more detail and complexity, I shall indulge, explain, and argue the stated and theoretical arguments and counter arguments between the character Crito and Socrates’ personification of the Law.
In Plato’s dialogue, Crito, Socrates sits in his prison cell awaiting his untimely death by execution. It’s known from Apology that Socrates had been charged for several accounts: impiety, blasphemy against the gods, and the corruption of youth. Although he stood up for and reasoned his actions (or lack of action/wrongdoing), he was ultimately persecuted by a narrow margin. Crito, a loyal friend of high social status, visits the cell. Crito informs Socrates that plans had been made to break him out. He makes it clear that the plan is ready to put into action and that Socrates would be broken out that …show more content…
Crito claims, “one should choose just what a good and manly man would choose, particularly if one has claimed to care for virtue through his whole life… The whole affair concerning you will seem to have been conducted with a certain lack of manliness on our part; the way the lawsuit was introduced into the law court.” (45d-46a) Crito refers to how Socrates had dedicated his entire life to pursuing what is good; he believes Socrates would abandon his beliefs by taking the easy way out and accepting state-assisted suicide by a system that had wronged him in the first place. Since the courts had treated him unjustly by persecuting him, following through with the ‘law of retaliation’ and escaping his untimely death would be the seemingly most just action. Therefore, if Socrates did not escape, he would be doing the
In more detail and complexity, I shall indulge, explain, and argue the stated and theoretical arguments and counter arguments between the character Crito and Socrates’ personification of the Law.
In Plato’s dialogue, Crito, Socrates sits in his prison cell awaiting his untimely death by execution. It’s known from Apology that Socrates had been charged for several accounts: impiety, blasphemy against the gods, and the corruption of youth. Although he stood up for and reasoned his actions (or lack of action/wrongdoing), he was ultimately persecuted by a narrow margin. Crito, a loyal friend of high social status, visits the cell. Crito informs Socrates that plans had been made to break him out. He makes it clear that the plan is ready to put into action and that Socrates would be broken out that …show more content…
Crito claims, “one should choose just what a good and manly man would choose, particularly if one has claimed to care for virtue through his whole life… The whole affair concerning you will seem to have been conducted with a certain lack of manliness on our part; the way the lawsuit was introduced into the law court.” (45d-46a) Crito refers to how Socrates had dedicated his entire life to pursuing what is good; he believes Socrates would abandon his beliefs by taking the easy way out and accepting state-assisted suicide by a system that had wronged him in the first place. Since the courts had treated him unjustly by persecuting him, following through with the ‘law of retaliation’ and escaping his untimely death would be the seemingly most just action. Therefore, if Socrates did not escape, he would be doing the