In the reading CRITO the verdict of execution has already been given and now Socrates and colleagues must make the decision to flee the city of Athens or stay and face his fate. In this conversation you have Critos point of view and Socrates. Based on Critos reasoning he states three reasons why Socrates should stay, the first two being selfish but the third hitting home. Critos first argument is that if Socrates does not get away, then he will hurt crito in two ways A. Crito will lose a great friend when Socrates is killed B.
His notoriety will be harmed. Individuals won’t realize that Socrates stayed in prison. They’ll feel that it was workable for Crito to get Socrates out however that he didn’t do it in light of the fact that he wasn’t willing to spend the cash. Subsequently Crito will get a notoriety for watching over cash than for a companion. In this contention Crito is accepting that it is a terrible thing a man to accomplish something that will hurt a friend (Crito, 44b-c, Grube trans. here and somewhere else).
This contention is extremely slender. It just considers the results of Socrates’ activity for Crito. A more grounded contention would consider the negative and positive outcomes for everybody influenced both if Socrates stays in prison and on the off chance that he get away. It might be that there are different contemplations that exceed the mischief to Crito, or maybe a portion of the things Crito believes are damages are not by any stretch of the imagination hurts. Socrates makes both of these focuses later.
His second argument is Crito guesses regarding why Socrates would not like to get away. He says that if Socrates is concerned that by getting away he will hurt his companions who could get stuck in an unfortunate situation for offering him some assistance with escaping, then his apprehensions are unwarranted. To start with, they are willing to chance this or notwithstanding something more terrible for him, and second, it is shabby to pay off both the gatekeepers and any individual who may educate on them, so there won’t be much hazard (Crito, 44e-45b).
In the event that this was Socrates essential purpose behind not having any desire to get away, and Crito’s data about the simplicity of paying individuals off was genuine, then Crito’s reaction to it would convey some weight, yet as we will see, this was not Socrates fundamental explanation behind not having any desire to get away. Additionally, while it might be conceivable to pay individuals off, there is still the subject of whether it is moral. This is likewise something Socrates goes ahead to consider.
And finally in Critos third argument he hits a reality that Socrates will have to come to terms with. Crito notice Socrates’ obligation to his kids. As their dad, it is Socrates’ obligation to see that his youngsters are raised well and taught, and he can’t do this on the off chance that he is dead. Here Crito speaks to rule that are imperative to Socrates. He calls attention to that seeking after goodness is the manner by which Socrates maintains to lead his life, and that a decent man would see that his youngsters are tended to.
Crito says that staying in prison is the simple thing to do, however getting away takes mettle, and the correct thing, the good thing to do is to be overcome for the purpose of his children(Crito, 45c-d). Here finally Crito is considering more generous issues than regret or the negative suppositions of others. He is worried with the destiny of Socrates’ youngsters. Crito’s essential supposition is that if Socrates’ kicks the bucket, his youngsters won’t be tended to in the most ideal way. Socrates himself focuses out this is a wrong suspicion.
He says that Crito disregards the likelihood that his companions would be both ready and fit for bringing his kids up. If he somehow managed to escape and go to Thessaly, he doesn’t think it would be in his kids’ best enthusiasm to raise them there, on the grounds that there they would be considered nonnatives. On the off chance that he got away he would solicit his companions to fare thee well from his youngsters in Athens, and there is no motivation behind why they ought to deal with them on the off chance that he escapes however not in the event that he dies(Crito, 54a-b).
IN all of his reasoning crito has validity, but when it’s all said and done the kids and critos third argument are the most important. In the reading Socrates decides to take a different approach and try to look at things full circle and not for just what they are as is. Crito’s contentions Socrates considers to start with, why the conclusion of the lion’s share is not the most imperative assessment, second, what the results of getting away would be for the city of Athens, and third whether getting away is an out of line activity such that it would mischief Socrates’ spirit.
A large portion of Crito’s contentions concern the conclusion of the lion’s share – what will they think if Crito does not offer Socrates some assistance with escaping? What will they think if Socrates is not in charge of his kids? Socrates contends that the conclusion of a specialist is more essential than the sentiment of the dominant part. He gives the sample of somebody in preparing. Such a man does not pay consideration on the counsel of the overall population, however to his coach. In the event that he listened to popular assessment (take steroids, eat whatever you need, train 20 hours a day), he could hurt his body.
Socrates extends the relationship to settling on what the right route is to act. On the off chance that we listen to the larger part instead of specialists we could hurt our souls, the some portion of us that is mangled by wrong activities and profited by right ones(Crito, 47a-48a). Socrates concedes that as a greater part, the overall population has the ability to kill individuals, yet he expresses that the most essential thing is not living, but rather carrying on with a decent life, so it is not worth after the assessment of the dominant part in the event that it means relinquishing something that is critical for living a decent life. 48b).
The above is one of Socrates’ most key standards – that the truly critical thing is not to live but rather to live well. Thusly he considers whether it is ethically right to pay off the watchmen and escape. Socrates starts considering so as to tend to this issue the results for the city of Athens. He says that the laws and the city could be crushed on the off chance that he got away. Lawful judgments could lose their power in the event that they were invalidated by private nationals, and a city without laws would not stay in place for long.
Notwithstanding hurting the city, Socrates thought he would be escaping so as to hurt the state of his spirit. In the first place he thought his spirit would be hurt in light of the fact that he accepted that by hurting the city he would be additionally hurting his spirit. Being in charge of damage to others is something that makes mischief one’s spirit. He additionally would have endured mischief to his spirit on the grounds that he broke an understanding.
He made an implied consent to take after the laws of Athens in light of the fact that he lived under them for a long time, brought up his kids under them, and did not attempt to convince the city to change them. But in order to fully elvauate Socrates argument you must first put them in order. A) Living Well Argument 1. To do a crooked activity demolishes one’s spirit 2. Life is not worth living with a demolished soul Conclusion: The most imperative thing is not life but rather carrying on with an ethical and just life.
B) Consequences for Athens Argument 1. On the off chance that I escape from prison, then the laws of Athens and hence the city of Athens will be devastated. 2. To demolish the laws of Athens and the city of Athens damages the residents of Athens. 3. To damage others is to hurt my spirit in light of the fact that to mischief others is uncalled for, and doing vile activities hurts my spirit. 4. It is ideal to kick the bucket than to live with a demolished soul. Conclusion: Therefore, I ought to stay in prison and acknowledge capital punishment C) Agreement Argument 1.
On the off chance that I escape, then I will break an understanding I made with the city. 2. To break an assention is an uncalled for activity 3. Doing out of line activities hurts the spirit. 4. It is ideal to bite the dust than to live with a demolished soul. Conclusion: Therefore, I ought to stay in prison and acknowledge capital punishment. All of Socrates arguments have pure intention behind them. There’s no personal ulterior motive. He truly wants to show injustice for what it is. Also by him carrying this action through its shows that injustice corrupts governments and kills the innocent.
Socrates also understands that him fleeing brakes the very foundation his argument and reasoning stated in the court room. Hers why his arguments make sense contentions B and C both rely on upon contention A. To begin with, I’ll consider the general structure of B and C, and after that I’ll assess contention A which they depend on. Contention B has all the earmarks of being legitimate. In the event that the premises are genuine, then the conclusion must be valid. The inquiry is, are the premises genuine? Premise 2 gives off an impression of being valid.
We will talk about premises 3 and 4 while considering contention A. That abandons us with reason 1. Premise 1 predicts the results of Socrates’ activities. An issue with settling on choices about the proper behavior in view of outcomes is that we can’t generally precisely anticipate the results of activities. We don’t know for certain what the aftereffects of our activity will be or who will be influenced by them. Maybe if Socrates get away, different natives won’t take after Socrates’ sample of overstepping the law and getting away from prison. Possibly the main result will be that the state meats up security in the prisons and contracts protects who won’t be influenced.
All things considered Socrates would be profiting the city by getting away on the grounds that the consequence of his activity would be a more secure correctional facility. Contention C offers a superior contention using the aftereffects of A. C likewise gives off an impression of being substantial, and premises 1 and 2 are to genuine. On the off chance that Socrates escapes he will break his consent to comply with the laws. He gives a few samples of how he consented to comply with the laws by staying in Athens and not testing the laws.
It likewise genuine that breaking the assention would be an out of line activity. He doesn’t have the consent of the city to break the assention, and to end the understanding generally would be out of line. Contention A discussions about the spirit, and it is a dubious issue about whether we have a spirit. On the off chance that we supplant the thought of soul with character, the contention appears to work. Doing out of line activities ruins your character, it ruins who you are. Life is important when it is a prospering, developing, moral life, however existence with a ruined character is of practically no worth.
An existence without self-regard does not merit living. In conclusion Crito’s contentions are exceptionally limited. The one in number contention he gives about youngsters is viably invalidated by Socrates. Socrates’ weighty contention is not as a matter of course convincing, but rather on the off chance that we acknowledge his essential contention about just lives that are lived well having worth, then his second contention concerning his concurrence with the state to take after its laws is a convincing one, along these lines Socrates was on the whole correct to choose to stay in prison.