Analyzing Socrates Arguments On The Crito
Philosophy 100
Paper One
January 30, 2014
Arguments on the Crito
In the Crito, Plato introduces several arguments that Socrates makes on whether or not it would be just for him to escape from prison when the Athenians have not acquitted him. Socrates begins by arguing that one must never do wrong. One of the most compelling arguments that he goes on to make is that doing harm to someone is wrong and therefore one must never engage in retaliatory harm. Under certain circumstances, such as self-defense, retaliatory harm is necessary. Socrates also argues that whenever you violate an agreement, you harm the person you made the agreement with. Therefore, escaping is wrong. In this paper, I shall argue that although the arguments support …show more content…
My view of this argument is that Socrates is basically stating that self-defense is wrong. Socrates is stating that if you are harmed, you cannot harm in return. I believe this statement is false. If you are being attacked and are in danger of being hurt or even possibly killed, then who is to say that defending yourself is wrong? In my opinion, this statement is horribly written and doesn’t take into account the intentional harm that people bring upon others. Instead, this statement assumes that all people that do harm, do it unintentionally and its all just an accident, so therefore, one should not inflict harm in return for being …show more content…
The only argument that I would change or modify would be the argument about retaliatory harm. Perhaps instead of saying that one should never engage in retaliatory harm, it could say that one should never harm someone else, if the harm was unintentional. Socrates might disagree with my opinion and say that there is no harm that is unintentional and that his statement about retaliatory harm is correct. In some lights, Socrates statement is correct. For example, when someone accidentally trips you while going down the stairs, you shouldn’t trip them in return. It clearly was an accident, so Socrates’ statement does follow this example. In contrast, not all harm is unintentional. An important example that proves that all harm is not unintentional is the example of serial killers. Obviously, none of their murders were an accident. They planned all of their murders and it didn’t just accidentally
Paper One
January 30, 2014
Arguments on the Crito
In the Crito, Plato introduces several arguments that Socrates makes on whether or not it would be just for him to escape from prison when the Athenians have not acquitted him. Socrates begins by arguing that one must never do wrong. One of the most compelling arguments that he goes on to make is that doing harm to someone is wrong and therefore one must never engage in retaliatory harm. Under certain circumstances, such as self-defense, retaliatory harm is necessary. Socrates also argues that whenever you violate an agreement, you harm the person you made the agreement with. Therefore, escaping is wrong. In this paper, I shall argue that although the arguments support …show more content…
My view of this argument is that Socrates is basically stating that self-defense is wrong. Socrates is stating that if you are harmed, you cannot harm in return. I believe this statement is false. If you are being attacked and are in danger of being hurt or even possibly killed, then who is to say that defending yourself is wrong? In my opinion, this statement is horribly written and doesn’t take into account the intentional harm that people bring upon others. Instead, this statement assumes that all people that do harm, do it unintentionally and its all just an accident, so therefore, one should not inflict harm in return for being …show more content…
The only argument that I would change or modify would be the argument about retaliatory harm. Perhaps instead of saying that one should never engage in retaliatory harm, it could say that one should never harm someone else, if the harm was unintentional. Socrates might disagree with my opinion and say that there is no harm that is unintentional and that his statement about retaliatory harm is correct. In some lights, Socrates statement is correct. For example, when someone accidentally trips you while going down the stairs, you shouldn’t trip them in return. It clearly was an accident, so Socrates’ statement does follow this example. In contrast, not all harm is unintentional. An important example that proves that all harm is not unintentional is the example of serial killers. Obviously, none of their murders were an accident. They planned all of their murders and it didn’t just accidentally