Monday, March 25, 2019
Erroneus Assumptions in The Trial and Death of Socrates Essay -- Philo
Erroneus Assumptions in The Trial and Death of SocratesIn Platos Crito, Socrates explains to his old hotshot Crito his reasons for refusing an offer to help him escape execution. One of the tools Socrates uses to convince Crito of the righteousness of his ratiocination is a hypothetical debate concerning the state and laws of capital of Greece. Central to this argument is the congeniality that Socrates had always found in Athens, reflected by the fact that Socrates chose to remain in Athens for most of his life. Such a choice, the laws insist, implies a tacit arrangement between Socrates and the state of Athens, stipulating that Socrates either obey the laws or, when he deems the laws unsporting, persuade the metropolis to act in a more suitable fashion. It is this just obligation that prohibits Socrates from fleeing Athens to avoid execution. Socrates proves to Critos satisfaction that to break this musical arrangement would be to do impairment to the city of Athens, and as such it undersurface non be seriously considered. As he discusses his situation with Crito, Socrates refutes some of Critos basic assumptions. Curiously, however, Socrates does not examine his cause assumptions he never once asks if his agreement with Athens is just. He powerful assumes that Athens congeniality to him obligates him to follow the tenets of the agreement, but he does not ask if Athens feels similarly obligated. This question is central, for if Athens fails to uphold its part of the agreement the agreement cannot be just and Socrates is freed from any duty to it. I will show that Socrates own reasoning, particularly that used in Crito and Euthyphro, will prove that it is not only not wrong to break the agreement, but also that it is wrong to abide by an unjust agreement, such as... ...nywhere in the text of the Crito or the Euthyphro, unlike most of the other claims, which were derived from actual arguments in one of these Socratic dialogues. Whether or not the ag reement is rendered unjust by Athens actions is distinctly a debatable point, which affects the rest of the argument. There does not seem to be a way to prove undoubtedly that the agreement itself is made unjust if one of the parties unjustly refuses to acknowledge its obligations. Theoretically, the agreement is still sound, but this argument rests on the idea that, in practice, the agreement can never be more than what the parties make it. Although far from incontrovertible, the claim that the agreement is unjust can at least be reasonably defended against criticism. And if the above argument is correct, Socrates died for the rice beer of the unjust action of adhering to an impious agreement.