Socrates Death Crito Analysis

Socrates’ death
To begin with, we need to introduce Socrates. Socrates was and still regarded as one of the most influential philosophers. Socrates throughout his life showed a deep understanding of the human life, as well as an understanding of the world. He is considered one of the most important ethical philosophers of all time. Nothing much is known about his personal life, but his works were well preserved which revealed a lot about him as a great man. Socrates was sentenced to death and was put into prison because he disobeyed the roman god, and claimed to be led by a mysterious power. He was accused with offences against public morality. After his sentence was released a lot of his friends and jury expected him to refuse the sentence,
He presented Socrates with the consequences of him staying in jail. On the other hand, Socrates replied to him using deontological approach, defending his point of view using valid reasons. First Crito presented Socrates with the argument that people will say that Socrates did not choose to stay in prison; it must be his friends that did not talk to him. By this, he is saying if you don’t escape people will talk badly about your friends. By this argument, Crito shows a large interest in public opinion, and a large care about his reputation. This represents a teleological approach, because he is stating facts and consequences of Socrates staying in prison. When Socrates heard this, he immediately refuted this argument. He told Crito that he should not care about the majority’s opinion. Socrates gave the example of a trainer and a student. He says that when the student does something, everybody around him will talk about the thing, but he doesn’t listen to anybody but the trainer. Then he tells Crito that he should do the same thing because “the general public” is not qualified to judge anybody. It is the responsibility of a qualified person to give judgment for actions taken by others. This argument represents a deontological approach, because he is talking about a purpose. He is not listing facts and consequences; he is just saying that all matters of justice and injustice should be handled that way because it is the right