The following essay will discuss Socrates reasons for refusing Crito’s offer of help in Crito, as well as whether or not these refusals are justified. We will discuss each of Socrates reasons for refusing in turn, criticising each as we move through the dialogue. Crito raises the problem of the extent to which a moral person is obligated to their City State (referred to as Athens and the State throughout), as well as the individual's dedication to the central principle of the dialogue; never doing any wrong. We will focus on the idea that by being wronged by the State, Socrates’ obligation is dissolved but his reasons remain justified due to his dedication to the avoidance of wrongdoing and Plato's need to have Socrates be a consistent character and this being the sole justification for his refusal.
Socrates gives four reasons as to why he refuses Crito’s offer of escape. The first comes with the argument for the central moral principle of the dialogue, which is the idea that one should never do wrong. Socrates justifies this in the traditional Platonic dialogue form, having Crito agree that once corrupted a life is not worth living. Plato states that only a …show more content…
With Socrates explaining this obligation as “violence is a sin even against your parents,” (Plato, 1997b, §51c) it is easy to read as the idea that the son (slave) has no right to retaliate against the father (master), even if the father (master) has harmed them in the first instance, and has to right to destroy their father (master) to protect his own life. Thus, Socrates reason for refusing Crito is justified, because Socrates status as a loyal Athenian citizen leaves him with a political obligation to the Laws, even if this leads to him being obligated to a state which can freely harm him with no right to
Socrates gives four reasons as to why he refuses Crito’s offer of escape. The first comes with the argument for the central moral principle of the dialogue, which is the idea that one should never do wrong. Socrates justifies this in the traditional Platonic dialogue form, having Crito agree that once corrupted a life is not worth living. Plato states that only a …show more content…
With Socrates explaining this obligation as “violence is a sin even against your parents,” (Plato, 1997b, §51c) it is easy to read as the idea that the son (slave) has no right to retaliate against the father (master), even if the father (master) has harmed them in the first instance, and has to right to destroy their father (master) to protect his own life. Thus, Socrates reason for refusing Crito is justified, because Socrates status as a loyal Athenian citizen leaves him with a political obligation to the Laws, even if this leads to him being obligated to a state which can freely harm him with no right to