Crito By Plato Analysis
In Crito by Plato, Crito attempts to persuade Socrates to escape from jail so as to avoid his death sentence. This essay will set out to elaborate on the things Plato would say to both Crito and Socrates, if he were to be in jail with them. In addition, this essay will elaborate further on the reasons Plato would not agree that Socrates’ decision, to stay in jail and accept his death sentence, would eventually result in happiness. Thus, I will establish the stand that Plato would take sides with Crito who claims that Socrates should escape from jail to avoid his death sentence. However, to set the parameters of this essay, we need to understand Socrates’ and Plato’s perception of the term “happiness”.
First and foremost, it is important to understand Plato’s definition and derivation of happiness. Plato claims that one has achieved happiness insofar as one’s soul is functioning well. For a soul to function well, it must be in order and hence deemed as just. Thus, one would result …show more content…
In the case of having the owner not being in the right frame of mind, he might be doing something to harm another. Harming someone is perceived as an act of injustice. The owner is therefore unjust and the borrower should not return what is owed. Returning what is owed would be deemed as an unjust action. Assuming that the city has passed an unjust sentence on Socrates, the law that governs the city will be unjust. Since the law of a city is the soul of the city, a set of unjust law that governs the city would inherently equate to an unjust city. If Socrates were to be in a contract with an unjust city, fulfilling the terms of the contract would be deemed as unjust and a wrong thing to do. Therefore, Plato would believe it is not always necessary to adhere to your agreements if it were an act of injustice, for it may not result in a life of
First and foremost, it is important to understand Plato’s definition and derivation of happiness. Plato claims that one has achieved happiness insofar as one’s soul is functioning well. For a soul to function well, it must be in order and hence deemed as just. Thus, one would result …show more content…
In the case of having the owner not being in the right frame of mind, he might be doing something to harm another. Harming someone is perceived as an act of injustice. The owner is therefore unjust and the borrower should not return what is owed. Returning what is owed would be deemed as an unjust action. Assuming that the city has passed an unjust sentence on Socrates, the law that governs the city will be unjust. Since the law of a city is the soul of the city, a set of unjust law that governs the city would inherently equate to an unjust city. If Socrates were to be in a contract with an unjust city, fulfilling the terms of the contract would be deemed as unjust and a wrong thing to do. Therefore, Plato would believe it is not always necessary to adhere to your agreements if it were an act of injustice, for it may not result in a life of