Plato's "Crito" (or "To Do Or Die?")
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
While imprisoned and awaiting execution for curiosity, for teaching and for not believing the same gods as other Greeks, Socrates was visited by Crito early one morning and Crito had an offer: bribe the guards and escape! One wonders how long the 70 year-old man had to think it over because in the end, he went on to his execution. This is important because if he took Crito’s offer and escaped, a domino effect would have started and the world as we know it would not exist in the form of the absence of Plato. Socrates had to die and the reasons he gives are worth investigating. Plato's "Crito" is a short read.
“TWO WRONGS DON’T MAKE A RIGHT”
First, Socrates discourages the bribing of the guards on the grounds that two wrongs don’t make a right. “[W]e ought not to retaliate or render evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him.” Yes, there are problems in that an innocent man is condemned to death, but what happens to the integrity of a man if when he disagrees with an evil that he responds with an evil? This principle is so absolute these very words appear almost verbatim nearly 500 years later in the writings of The Apostle Paul and Peter (Romans 12:17; 1 Thessalonians 5:15; 1 Peter 3:9*). Crito felt his reputation was at stake if he stood by and let Socrates be executed, but Socrates saw the bigger picture and by going ahead with his death, saved Crito from compromising his integrity by making the bribes.
THREE REASONS
Second, Socrates provides three reasons as to why he should remain in prison, the first being a metaphor of the State acting as his parent. His actual parents were legally wed by the laws of the State, he was born into the State and educated by the State. In effect, the State gives him identity, so if he were to escape, he would be disobeying his parent, the State. The second reason to stay in prison and go on to death is that the State has been generous, so what gratitude does he show by running away? The final reason is that by receiving the sentence of death, Socrates entered into an agreement with the State--and everyone should keep their agreements. Escape would be in violation to the agreement. Besides, what power remains in the State if he flees his prison?
CONCLUSION
“TWO WRONGS DON’T MAKE A RIGHT”
First, Socrates discourages the bribing of the guards on the grounds that two wrongs don’t make a right. “[W]e ought not to retaliate or render evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him.” Yes, there are problems in that an innocent man is condemned to death, but what happens to the integrity of a man if when he disagrees with an evil that he responds with an evil? This principle is so absolute these very words appear almost verbatim nearly 500 years later in the writings of The Apostle Paul and Peter (Romans 12:17; 1 Thessalonians 5:15; 1 Peter 3:9*). Crito felt his reputation was at stake if he stood by and let Socrates be executed, but Socrates saw the bigger picture and by going ahead with his death, saved Crito from compromising his integrity by making the bribes.
THREE REASONS
Second, Socrates provides three reasons as to why he should remain in prison, the first being a metaphor of the State acting as his parent. His actual parents were legally wed by the laws of the State, he was born into the State and educated by the State. In effect, the State gives him identity, so if he were to escape, he would be disobeying his parent, the State. The second reason to stay in prison and go on to death is that the State has been generous, so what gratitude does he show by running away? The final reason is that by receiving the sentence of death, Socrates entered into an agreement with the State--and everyone should keep their agreements. Escape would be in violation to the agreement. Besides, what power remains in the State if he flees his prison?
CONCLUSION
Socrates not only wants Crito to maintain integrity by making the right actions and right decisions, but also wants the show the citizens of Athens the picture of an upstanding citizen. There may be issues regarding laws, but Socrates’ point (which may lead to another entry on the subsequent debate) is simply this: respect for the law ensures that everyone does their part for the state.
------------
* One wonders if this was a common teaching, of not repaying evil for evil, for it pre-dates King Solomon who lived roughly 500 years before Socrates. Solomon included this saying in his collection of Proverbs.
------------
* One wonders if this was a common teaching, of not repaying evil for evil, for it pre-dates King Solomon who lived roughly 500 years before Socrates. Solomon included this saying in his collection of Proverbs.
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Popular posts from this blog
The Smooth-flowing Life
Legend has it that the astronomer Ptolemy (1st century A.D.) suggested that falling stars were caused by the gods moving in the heavens, thus knocking stars out of their places. Somehow people reasoned that that if the gods were moving, they must be getting close to earth so they would lift their "prayers" or "wishes" (literally, "desires") whenever they saw the stars falling in hopes the gods would notice and grant a favorable answer. But how does one wish on falling star? Once you see it, it's gone before the wish or prayer can be made! The answer is simple: meteor shower. That's how to get your wish. Mrs. Ann Hodges had a wish fall right into her lap. Sort of. In 1954 Mrs. Hodges was sleeping on the couch when a 8 1/2 pound meteorite fell through her house and into her living room where it bounced off the radio and struck her left hip leaving her with a bruise. Not sure what she was wishing, but that's not how to do it. Epictetus hel
A Reflection in Plato’s “Republic” Book 2
Early in Book 2 of Plato’s “Republic,” the discussion turns into the story of a man named Gyges who finds a ring that makes him invisible. Using the powers of the ring, he reports to the court of his king, seduces the queen “and with her help conspired against the king and slew him, and took the kingdom.” What would happen if there were two rings, one worn by an unjust man and the other by a just man? The story attempts to make the case that a just man will act unjustly if given the opportunity to think he is doing right, if only by himself. But what if he doesn’t? What if there was no ring, and what if there was a perfectly unjust man and a perfectly just man and both had everything they needed in life? The unjust man must cover his steps in order to be distinguished and succeed. In the eyes of others, he appears to be just. But what about the just man, who appears to be unjust? “They will tell you that the just man who is thought unjust will be scourged, racked, bound-will have hi