Evaluation of Socrates’ Premises Set Out in “Crito”

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Introduction

Impiety and corrupting the youth

These are the two vices that lead to Socrates’ current predicament. This may be viewed to be ironic as a large part of the play deals with Socrates giving his views about this and emerging to the reader’s judgment as innocent. After the final monologue in which Socrates tells Crito that the voices in his conscience have been urging him against going against the state and the laid down laws, it becomes rather clear that he is indeed not to blame and that it is Crito who is in the wrong for urging him on.

This paper will regard the three premises discussed in the play and we will seek to evaluate whether the premises laid down by Socrates do indeed concur with the conclusions he makes and if these conclusions can in any way contrast with Crito’s viewpoint.

Premises

Socrates believes he owes the government his obedience. He is of the view that retaliating a wrong with another wrong, which would escape, will not correct the wrong already done by the law which is being falsely accused consequences of his escape would be worse than staying in jail. We will first look into the explanation of each of these premises with regards to his reasoning. His current predicament does not worry him much; “and now that this fortune has come upon me,” It is also made clear in his unperturbed slumber when Crito comes to his cell. The fact that he owes his government obedience is made clear in his monologue in which he observes that it is the government that gave him life educating him and enabling his progenitors to marry. He also observes that he took a contract that was implied by choosing to remain in his country thereby proof that he will abide by the laws laid out by the state. As to why he believes in this premise is the repercussions he highlights in his monologue. He is of the view that he will be giving the government arsenal against him should he choose to escape as he would be in no position to answer the questions posed to him were he to be caught escaping and he would be running from a government that has brought him thus far. He considers that once you wrong the government it is threefold.

From the onset, it is clear that Socrates makes use of reason as opposed to making decisions offhandedly. This brings us to our second premise. He queries Crito on whether it is right to make amends of one who has wronged you by adding further wrong. To this, Crito answers in the negative. He gives the analogy of a trainee and a trainer in gymnastics implying that one should only hold regard to one authority when making decisions. Not the voices of the multitude that he claims view revenge as morality. Repercussions of his escape are the third premise and this he delineates in the monologue. He weighs the pros and cons of escaping and the scale is tipped to the latter. Due to his selfless nature, he is of the view that he would even harm his friends by his escape causing them to go through forced exile and lose property they have worked for all their life. Friends like Simmias of Theban and Crito. He would also forever live with the notion that he is a traitor of his country.

Whether he owes his government allegiance is made crystal during his monologue that is written in the form of a trial. He is of the view that by agreeing to stay in the country he bound himself to an “implied contract”. To break the laws that bind the contract would be to err threefold. It would be disobedience against the parents, the authors of his education, and the laws that bind the contract and that were agreed to if not implied by citizenship. It is therefore a true premise as there is no escape from the law that binds you to your country. And in so doing we see the logic between the premise and the conclusion.

In justification of the second premise, two wrongs do not make a right according to Socrates. Crito tries to show Socrates the value of his life but Socrates counters this by asking him if the body that is destroyed by evil and disease is more valuable than the soul. He retaliates when Crito asks him to listen to the multitude that is planning his escape. He asks Crito if it is in listening to the multitude that the trainer gets to learn or by giving a keen ear to those other than the trainer. It is in line with this that asks whether revenging for being falsely accused by the government through escape that he regains his conscience that he is indeed lacking in fault. This premise we may evaluate as true considering he is not above the law and consequences of retaliation would be but an effort to grasp the wind. There is a logical conclusion to the argument as he is able to agree with Crito that evil cannot be fought with evil.

His selflessness is portrayed in the final premise when in his monologue he views that the law must come first before family and children. He acting as both the prosecutor and the plaintiff tries to make sense of the repercussions of his actions. His family may suffer if he escapes and his friends may suffer too. Throughout the play, Socrates’ arguments do seem to have a premise and indeed a logical conclusion and this is made clear in the fact that though Crito sticks to his argument for escape, Socrates is, in fact, able to logically conclude all arguments for the purpose of their being true to purpose. Though the irony of impiety and corruption the two offenses Socrates is sentenced for persisting through to the end, there is a logical sequence of arguments that enlightens the reader to the truth.

Click Here To Order Now!

Evaluation of Socrates’ Premises Set Out in “Crito”

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)