Plato's Crito: Argumentative Analysis

However, instead of planning the escape Socrates started the dialog about why he would rather obey the law and be executed. At first, Crito presented two arguments to

King values civil disobedience, which is the refusal to obey certain laws or governmental demands by nonviolent techniques as boycotting, picketing, and nonpayment of taxes, but the violence created from that is not his fault. Logic is key in this situation because its obvious you shouldn't punish someone who isn't being violent. Another example is, "We can never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. But I am sure that if I had lived in Germany during that time I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers even though it was illegal. . . ."

Crito is distressed by Socrates reasoning and wishes to convince him to escape since Crito and friends can provide the ransom that the jury demands. If not for himself, Socrates should escape for the sake of his friends, sons, and those who benefit from his teaching according to Crito. However, Socrates denies the plan of escape. The three arguments to be acknowledged are as follows: the selfish, the practicality, and the moral. Socrates reason not to escape, Socrates explanation of the good life, and an objection for breaking the laws that would put no harm to his fellow citizens is

They said they weren’t applied correctly. Thoreau asked for “not at once no government, but at once a better government” (250). He says that the government is necessary, but needed to be improved. King believed that there are some instances when a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. He was correct in his beliefs like a law may appear correct on paper.

Socrates’ Arguments in the Crito In The Crito, Socrates argues that he should not escape prison because it would be morally incorrect. He says that the really important thing is not to live but to live well. Therefore, by escaping prison, not only will he suffer the consequences but also his family, his friends, and the city of Athens. Socrates argues that the city of Athens would be affected if he escapes from prison.

Argument 1 and 3 Crito gives Socrates are about Socrates hurting him, by losing a good friend and he’ll have bad reputation. He’ll receive bad reputation

I think that there is a fallacy of irrelevance. In the book, Socrates sets out to defend the idea that it is always in one’s best interest to be just and to act justly and he suggests that the just person as one who has a balanced soul will lead one to act justly or why mental health amounts to justice. I feel that justice includes actions in relation to others, it includes considerations of other people’s good, and includes strong motivations not to act unjustly. I believe that Socrates’ defense of justice does not include constraining reasons to think that a person with a balanced soul will refrain from acts that are commonly thought to be unjust like theft, murder, and adultery.

King stating their wrong doings, helped prove his point about just and unjust laws and about his wrongful jailing for taking a peaceful stand.

King backs this up stating, “We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." ” This statement shows that something being legal or illegal doesn’t make it right or wrong. This can be applied to present day, in the news recently Gay marriage has been a huge debate, and due to a Supreme Court Decision gay marriage is now legal. According to King’s definition of just and unjust laws Gay Marriage would be a unjust law because it isn’t morally right, or follow the law of God.

In Apology, Socrates faces possible execution as he stands trial in front of his fellow Athenian men. This jury of men must decide whether Socrates has acted impiously against the gods and if he has corrupted the youth of Athens. Socrates claims in his defense that he wants to live a private life, away from public affairs and teachings in Athens. He instead wants to focus on self-examination and learning truths from those in Athens through inquiry. Socrates argues that "a [man] who really fights for justice must lead a private, not a public, life if [he] is to survive for even a short time" (32a).

Political activists and philosophers alike have a challenging task of determining the conditions under which citizens are morally entitled to go against the law. Socrates and Martin Luther King, Jr. had different opinions on the obligation of the citizens in a society to obey the law. Although they were willing to accept the legal punishment, King believed that there are clear and definable circumstances where it would be appropriate, and sometimes mandatory, to purposely disobey unjust laws. Socrates did not. Socrates obeyed what he considered to be an unjust verdict because he believed that it was his obligation, as a citizen of Athens, to persuade or obey its Laws, no matter how dire the consequences.

Position Paper #1: For Socrates’ Argument of Tacit Agreement In The Crito Socrates uses two metaphors to justify his reason for staying in jail and dying instead of leaving Athens and starting a new life in another town. The metaphor he uses that most justifies his reasoning is the argument of tacit agreement, that he agreed to the laws and regulation of Athens when he decided to live there. Socrates knew that living in he agreed to follow all rules that the city had.

He was proving this because throughout his speech, he made it seem like the idea of knowing the truth and having real knowledge about a subject wasn’t needed in order to achieve the goal of persuasion. In Socrates’ speech he stated, “...if I say that the unexamined life is not worth living, you’ll believe me even less... you think I’ve been convicted for lack of arguments that would have persuaded you…” Socrates never specified or went into details about his beliefs that he was presenting to the court which, revealed to them that he did not know anything. He wasn’t able to strengthen his claims by providing evidence meaning his use of logos was faulty. However, Socrates’ goal was not to gather evidence to make it seem as if he was putting all his efforts in saving his life.

To be just or to be served an injustice and obey, this is the very basis of the philosophical dialogue between Socrates and Crito. The Crito begins as one of Socrates’ wealthy friends, Crito, offers Socrates a path to freedom—to escape from Athens. Through the ensuing dialogue, Socrates examines, as a man who is bound by principles of justice, whether an unjust verdict should be responded to with injustice. In the dialogue between Socrates and Crito, Socrates outlines his main arguments and principles that prevent him from escaping under such circumstances. Socrates is under guard when Crito visits him, thus the plan to escape.

King never advocated breaking the laws that were just and fair to everyone. He only advocated breaking an unjust as long as they do it, as King says, “openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty.” (357) King talks about other ways that people broke unjust laws before him. He calls it civil disobedience. He gives the example of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refusing Nebuchadnezzar.