My argument is that though we might agree to accept punishment when we break the law, should we agree to punishment even if we are innocent? Who has to decide our innocence? Is it not the court which has already decided our fate like in the case of Socrates? It’s unfortunate we should get to accept not only punishment but also unwarranted punishment. The principles that guide the rule of law include the innocent should not be punished, but the guilty should be punished. Unfortunately, these principles are left unsettled because of the restrictions on human awareness of specific cases. Truthfully, it is impossible to eliminate innocent people from being punished completely but there should be optimization on the ratio of the guilty punished and innocent punished. The case of Socrates being unjustly ruled against him as he is sentenced to execution outlines these injustice instances. Socrates should not allow the unjust actions to occur to him and should do something in avoiding the verdict.
Socrates endorsement of his death is improper and disgraceful in the merit of him being truthful and principled. Moreover, Socrates has been wronged by the city and does not commit to accept this penalty. Additionally, Socrates will be collaborating in his demise as long as he remains in prison. Furthermore, Socrates has an obligation to raise his children because if he allows being defeated and evil befalls his people, he will not be held accountable. In this case, Socrates virtues of being responsible for his own family are challenged.
Socrates might or might not be guilty of charges he was accused of, and the question of his innocence is philosophically legitimate. Socrates believes in his integrity. Moreover, Socrates arguments about escaping from prison should be held in the theory that he is innocent. However, the law advises that by escaping from prison, Socrates would be breaking the law. This is because the city is ruined when private persons can annul court verdicts. Moreover, if Socrates was, in fact, guilty, his escaping of prison will bring him more trouble than good because he will be breaking the law more. On the other hand, if he is innocent, escaping from prison would be his first occasion of breaking the law. He should, therefore, do the latter and save himself.
Socrates’s friends would look bad publicly if they did not try and help Socrates. Socrates then says that the majority’s opinion should not be of concern but in truth majority’s opinion kills such as in his case whereby he is sentenced to execution by the 500 juries. Socrates points out that the opinion of many is not powerful because it cannot do the most significant harm which is making one foolish but can do maximum good by making one wise. Though this point reveals Socrates values, which is him being wise, these remarks show the instance of Socrates’s irony on the role of the majority. Though Socrates reasons seem to question majority’s opinion without any qualification, there are areas he seems ready to accept their rule such as in politics where he is committed to the Athenian democracy and legal system by accepting the judgment of the jury to execute him.
Socrates example of using physical training as a way of saying that a trainer’s opinion is the one to be considered says that the jury should be respected for they know the rule of law though it is less satisfactory. To amplify his argument, he points out that the soul, which is the part concerned with justice and injustice is more valuable than the body and experts prefer issues that pertain the soul. This argument seems to be misleading because how can the value of things contribute in deciding whether or not to accept the majority’s opinion.
Do The Arguments Of Socrates and Crito Entail the Athenian Cultural Values? Use Definite Examples from the Course Comprehensions to Sustain and Prove You’re Points
The loss of an enviable reputation, money, and the duty to educate one’s children are the doctrines of the majority according to fundamental principles. These doctrines are accepted just not because they express the opinions of the majority but because they are supported by good reasoning. Moreover, the moral rules of Socrates remain that an individual should by no means do wrong (Crito, aC4). Furthermore, Socrates arguments against sustaining unfairness do not openly state to the damage we cause to others. He accentuates that the very act of unfairness troubles the offender as these actions debase the soul (Crito, aC2). Furthermore, the significances of our wrong actions cannot harm us, but the actions themselves. Figuratively, wrongdoing eats our souls’ step by step.
A wrong should not be returned for a wrong according to the central principle. Socrates says that one should fulfill just agreements with others though this does not seem to be derived from the Central Principle. It is an overall agreeable statement. Moreover, Crito knows that if he helps Socrates to escape, he will be breaking this principle though he does not care. This shows that Socrates argument is consistent with the Athenian culture of restraining from wrongdoing while Crito’s view breaks the Athenian rules.
Finally, we should not agree to pay for actions that we did not commit regardless of the fact that we accept the rule of law. This is because the people who are supposed to decide our innocence have already decided our fates such as in the case of Socrates. It is unfair that a person should accept warranted punishment and also unwarranted punishment. Two principles guide the rule of law which are; the innocent should not be punished, and all guilty should be punished. In truth, it is impossible, but there should be optimization on the ratio of the punished guilty and punished innocent.
Plato, Crito, trans. By Harold North Fowler (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966) Perseus DigitalLibraryProject.Retrievedfromhttp://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0170:text=Crito Used under CC BY 3.0. (September 12, 2017), pp 74-91 Course Pack.