Then we must do no wrong? Nor when injured injure in return, as the many imagine; for we must injure no one at all? Again, Critomay we do evil? And what of doing evil in return for evil, which is the morality of the many—is that just or not?
You may proceed, for I have not changed my mind. Then ought Socrates to desert or not? Then I will go on to the next point, which may be put in the form of a question: He ought to do what he thinks right.
But if this is true, what is the application? In leaving the prison against the will of the Athenians, do I wrong any? Do I not desert the principles which were acknowledged by us to be just—what do you say? I cannot tell, Socrates; for I do not know. The Laws come and argue with him.
Then consider the matter in this way: Do you imagine that a state can subsist and not be overthrown, in which the decisions of law have no power, but are set aside and trampled upon by individuals?
Any one, and especially a rhetorician, will have a good deal to say on behalf of the law which requires a sentence to be carried out. Has he any fault to find with them?
Tell us,—What complaint have you to make against us which justifies you in attempting to destroy us and the state? In the first place did we not bring you into existence?
Your father married your mother by our aid and begat you. Say whether you have any objection to urge against those of us who regulate marriage? Were not the laws, which have the charge of education, right in commanding your father to train you in music and gymnastic?
And if this is true you are not on equal terms with us; nor can you think that you have a right to do to us what we are doing to you. Would you have any right to strike or revile or do any other evil to your father or your master, if you had one, because you have been struck or reviled by him, or received some other evil at his hands?
And because we think right to destroy you, do you think that you have any right to destroy us in return, and your country as far as in you lies? Will you, O professor of true virtue, pretend that you are justified in this?Socrates in the Crito. In at least TWO full pages, EXPLAIN the following: In the Crito, how is it that Socrates can be considered to have made an agreement or “contract” with the Laws?
Summary. The Crito records the conversation that took place in the prison where Socrates was confined awaiting his leslutinsduphoenix.com is in the form of a dialog between Socrates and Crito, an elderly Athenian who for many years has been a devoted friend of Socrates and a firm believer in his ethical teachings.
Crito (/ ˈ k r aɪ t oʊ / KRY-toh or / ˈ k r iː t oʊ / KREE-toh; Ancient Greek: Κρίτων) is a dialogue by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato. It depicts a conversation between Socrates and his wealthy friend Crito regarding justice (δικαιοσύνη), injustice (ἀδικία), and the appropriate response to injustice.
Plato’s “Apology” and “Crito”, I believe Socrates’ philosophy of not doing harmful things on purpose, because of ignorance, or the act of doing it unwillingly, is false. First I will show you some contradictions introduced in the books of the Apology, and Crito and explain them.
Echoing Socrates in Plato’s Crito (51cd), Maurizio Viroli writes: “ We have a moral obligation towards our country because we are indebted to it.
This explanation, however, does not apply in the case of patriotism. Patriotism is not but another extension of the duty of concern for others; it is a special concern for my country.
Socrates's Argument Fallacies and Crito by Plato In five pages this paper discusses Socrates' argument fallacies as they are portrayed in Crito by Plato.