The Pros And Cons Of Socrates

More importantly, Socrates’s relationship to the state is made clear during the dialogue with his friend Crito, when speaking as if Socrates is the state himself. When asking how important the state is, the law asks; “Is your…country to be honored more than…all your ancestors…that it counts for more among the gods and sensible men, that you must worship it…?” Rather than a statement, Socrates makes his point that the law must be upheld, even in his case of a death sentence. It is important to note that Socrates accepted his fate, even though he felt the accusations against him were false. Yet, as if speaking on behalf of the law, recognized that escaping would only turn those untruthful indictments into the truth, and as a destroyer of laws; “You will strengthen the conviction of the jury that they passed the right sentence on you.” By the definition of the word martyr, as one who dies for a cause, in this instance the laws of the state,

In the Crito however Socrates shifts his views toward obeying the laws. He says that the laws have given him birth, upbringing, and education. They have given every citizen of Athens a share of fine things. If the laws are not to any one citizens liking, the law allows that person to leave and take his property with him. So, anyone who stays in Athens is making an agreement with the laws to obey them. If one does break the law they are committing an

Owing to this fact, fleeing from Athens without permission or notification to the authorities would actually be violating the laws of the land and participating in ‘wrong’ actions- which was the direct opposite of the ‘goodness’ that he believed in. Socrates had always been a forthright advocate for the Athenian political and legal system. Owing to the agreement between him and the city authorities, he was also the beneficiary of an unknown quantity of benefits. Moreover, for him to fully enjoy the benefits of what was provided to him by the city of Athens, he had to in return give up something. In this case, it was his freedom of choice and action where there was a clash between his personal views and the stipulations of Athenian law.

To this question, first Socrates says that he should not revenge injustice. Because doing injustice is bad in any circumstances (Crito 49b), to return injustice just because of having injustice done onto himself would bad also (Crito 49c). Therefore Socrates should not commit injustice just to get even with Athens. Injustice is bad because it harms, and disobedience to the law would harm the city (Crito 50b); so it seems that to disobey the law would be an injustice. But why should Socrates obey the law of the city? Socrates reasons that since the city has done him great benefactions, such as giving birth to his life, taking care of his physical upbringing and his education, and granting him long years of benefits from the legal system (Crito 50e - 51c), Socrates owns the state a strong duty of gratitude just as a child would own to his father. One of those duties is to obey the state (like how a child obeys his parents), which always has included the possibility of death such as in times of war (Crito 51b). Socrates should obey the city because he has made an agreement to do so. This agreement is the social contract that he has implicitly accepted and lived under for 70 years. This contract is legitimate because Socrates had a thorough understanding of the legal system (Crito 51e - 52a), he did not leave the city when he was given the fair chance all his life (Crito 51 c-e), and that he

He also explains to Crito that the citizen is bound to the laws like a child is bound to a parent, and so to go against the laws would be like striking a parent. Rather than simply break the laws and escape, Socrates should try to persuade the laws to let him go. These laws present the citizen's duty to them in the form of a kind of social contract. By choosing to live in Athens, a citizen is endorsing the laws, and is willing to follower by them. Therefore, if he was to break from prison now, having so consistently validated the social contract, he would be making himself an outlaw who would not be welcome in any other civilized state for the rest of his life. Furthermore when he dies, he will be harshly judged in the underworld for behaving unjustly toward his city's laws. In this way, Socrates chooses not to attempt escape but he dies as a martyr, not for himself, but for his city and its system of justice.

To Socrates laws only have meaning because the people give them meaning and only by following the laws do we see the actual value of them. According to Socrates the relationship of the people and the states are like that of a child and their parents. He claims that state raises the people by guiding them with laws giving them order and educates the people of what’s right and what’s wrong. Socrates does not believe in disobeying the law to set examples as you would not disobey your parents just to prove a point. Socrates is appreciative for what state has done for him and feels as if it is his duty and obligation to repay them or show gratitude to the state by following its laws.

Socrates is facing the death penalty in Athens and his old friend Crito is trying to break him out of prison. Socrates however refuses his offer and Crito goes on to try and find ways to convince him why he should break out, but Socrates argues against all the reasons Crito gives. At one point in the argument Socrates discusses the laws of Athens and how they “gave birth to you, brought you up, educated you, and gave you and all the other citizens everything we could that's good” (Crito, line 51c). Socrates says this to try and explain to Crito that the laws of Athens are bound to all the fellow citizens of Athens, that they have been nurturing him and have allowed him and all the other citizens to live a life of balance and harmony. Socrates

They go on to say" Or do you think it possible for a city not to be destroyed if the verdicts of its courts have no force but are nullified and set at naught by privet individuals?"(50b). In his theoretical discussion Socrates questions if the "Laws" claim is valid, due to the unjust nature of his trial. This objection to the "Laws" argument moves into to the final portion of the Laws case against escape. They claim That citizens have agreed to abide by the laws of their nation without explicit consent is not sufficient excuse enough to vacate said agreement. Furthermore, should they have felt the state unworthy of their respect or the laws of the state unjust, it would have been within a citizen's rights to either attempt to change the laws or to leave to another

The State was good with Socrates. P3) Socrates was always free to leave. P4) Socrates accepted the state laws. P5) Go against the state and it would not be coherent.

Athens could also be seen as a place where they educated their citizens. Socrates understood that he would not be the man who he is today, without Athens. Like anything, a child would not willingly do harm on a parent, especially if they receive love and protection, and no harm in return. This parental versus child relationship is quite similar to the relationship Socrates had with Athens. The people of Athens could have assumed that Socrates would try to escape and that his death sentence would not follow through, but Socrates did not see this as an important factor. He believed that if he escaped, it would hinder the image of Athens because he would not be following their laws, which might influence the citizens to also break the laws of Athens. People with a lot of influence, have a lot of followers, for example, the people of Athens. If Socrates, supposedly the wisest man were to escape from prison and his death sentence, other people might think it is fine to disobey Athens as well. On the other hand, the citizens expected him to escape, but the fact that he stayed in prison to face his death sentence shows how seriously he took subjects like harming others and obeying the state to heart. Another objection to this argument could be, that Socrates was falsely accused and was harmed when he was truly innocent, he did not commit any of the crimes he was accused of, but Socrates still had the opportunity to a fair trial, he just did not use

There are times in every mans life where our actions and beliefs collide—these collisions are known as contradictions. There are endless instances in which we are so determined to make a point that we resort to using absurd overstatements, demeaning language, and false accusations in our arguments. This tendency to contradict ourselves often questions our character and morals. Similarly, in The Trial of Socrates (Plato’s Apology), Meletus’ fallacies in reason and his eventual mistake of contradicting himself will clear the accusations placed on Socrates. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates is not guilty of corrupting the youth with the idea of not believing in the Gods but of teaching the youth to think for

In his hypothetical argument with the law, the law states that his idea that because the courts wronged him, he should not now wrong them because the two parties are not equal. The Athenian government believes that is is bad to wrong your country because they have given him everything: his life, education and nurturing as they did with his ancestors. This argument tells Socrates, how the gods want him to care about his country more than his own family and though he does not fear death he does think of judgement from the gods.

In his third premise, Socrates argues that men must do what they believe to be right, and keep their agreements. Socrates argues that he is under an agreement with the state to abide by their laws, and that escaping would be breaking their agreement, thereby knowingly doing wrong. He concludes that if he were to escape he would be breaking agreements and purposely doing wrong, and therefore would not be living justly and honorably, and not be living a good life. For these reasons he decides that he can not escape jail.

The problem with Socrates concerns the problem with the role of value and reason. Nietzsche believes that the bulk of philosophers claim that life is a corrupt grievance for mankind. Nietzsche reasoned that these life deniers were decadents of Hellenism, as a symptom of some underlying melancholy. For someone to paint life in such a negative light they must have suffered a great deal through the course of their own life. Furthermore, these no-sayers agreed in various physiological ways and thus adopted the same pessimistic attitudes towards life. Socrates was ugly, alike decadent criminals and by ways of these similarities was decadent as well. Nietzsche also claims ugliness as a physiological symptom of life in its decline supported by studies in phenology.

He sees the City of Athens as a parent figure to him and any citizen in Athens. Athens has raised Socrates, protected him from foreign invades and educated him. Much like a parent would do, it is his duty as a citizen of Athens a City to show nothing but gratefulness and respect. Even though he is suffering injustice, he exclaims that it is “Better to suffer injustice than to commit one.” Which loops us back to Plato who is demanding that Socrates escapes from the injustice he is facing. If Socrates were to escape from his cell he would be contradicting everything he stands for, Socrates held a moral agreement with the City of Athens to “…obey its orders...” he questions Plato about whether it’s morally right to pay of the guards who would then allow him to escape. If he did so would he be breaking the moral