I argue against this appearance. I show that the Speech is used instead to persuade Crito to examine and work on his inadequate view of justice. Both start from the same view of justice, one that Crito accepts, but reach opposing conclusions.
Analysis The question is raised within the dialogue between Socrates and Crito concerning civil disobedience. Crito has the desire, the means, and many compelling reasons with which he tries to convince the condemned to acquiesce in the plan to avoid his imminent death.
Addressing public opinion, Socrates boldly asserts that it is more important to follow the advice of the wise and live well than to abide by the indiscriminate and capricious public opinion and live poorly. Even when it is the public who may put one to death, their favor need not be sought, for it is better to live well than to submit to their opinion and live poorly.
Next, wrongful doing is dispatched of. They both consent to the idea that, under no circumstances, may one do a wrong, even in retaliation, nor may one do an injury; doing the latter is the same as wrong doing. Both of the philosophers affirm that, provided that the conditions one consents to are legitimate, one is compelled to fulfill those covenants.
These each are founded upon right reasoning and do provide a justifiable foundation to discredit any design of dissent. At line fifty, Socrates executes these foundations to destroy and make untenable the petition that he may rightfully dissent: Then consider the logical consequence.
If we leave this place without first persuading the state to let us go, are we or are we not doing an injury, and doing it in a quarter where it is least justifiable? Are we or are we not abiding by our just agreements?
One would only contract with a government whose power insures the public good and whose establishment seeks to extend to its citizens utilitarian needs.Persons of the Dialogue: Socrates, Crito.
Scene: The Prison of Socrates. Socrates: Why have you come at this hour, Crito? it must be quite early. the only question which remains to be considered is, whether we shall do rightly either in escaping or in suffering others to aid in our escape and paying them in money and thanks, or whether in.
Socratic Persuasion in the Crito Christopher Moore I do not see evidence elsewhere in the dialogue that Crito does not believe what he sets out in these nine reasons, or that he’s even ambivalent about them.
Nor does Socrates have a monopoly on talking about morality. In response to Crito’s question about whether Socrates has been. Certainly, Socrates might or might not be guilty of the charges he was accused of and this question is philosophically legitimate.
This question, however, is not within the scope of this dialogue (it would be relevant for discussing e.g. the Apology).
Crito, one of Socrates’ close friends, urges Socrates to escape prison while he still can. Crito offers several arguments to justify his escape, including the shame he would endure from the public for letting his friend die, and the poor example it would set for the children of Athens.
Plato's dialogue "Crito" is a composition originating in B.C.E. that depicts a conversation between Socrates and his rich friend Crito in a prison cell in Athens in the year urbanagricultureinitiative.com dialogue covers the topic of justice, injustice and the appropriate response to both.
By setting forth an argument appealing to rational reflection rather . The escape of Socrates is planned by his friends, particularly his wealthy friend Crito, In the dialogue "Arrival of the Ship" Crito lays upon Socrates his plans of smuggling him out of jail and.