Crito Response essays

Crito Response essays As I read The Crito it seems to me a confusing and somewhat muddled dialogue. The difficulty Plato faced in composing the dialogue was to somehow justify Socrates' decision to stay in prison rather than try to escape after his wrongful conviction. Plato had to draw out a distinction between the just laws, which Socrates must obey by staying in prison, and the unjust behavior of Socrates' accusers, who sentenced him to death. The problem, of course, is that Socrates' accusers have unjustly sentenced him by using the laws. By giving the laws their own voice, Plato hopes to distinguish them as a separate entity, making them something human toward which Socrates might be able to act unjustly. In this dialogue we have the laws following suit with the accusers as the law persuades Socrates that he must face death to avoid breaking them. These arguments, at first seemed to be persuasive and sound. But I think that you can only separate the laws from the people who make and apply them so f ar. And that if both the people and the laws have condemned him, then it would seem that either the people side with the laws or the other way around. Either way it doesnt seem right to say that the laws are just and must be respected but the people are unjust and should not. One questionable argument of Socrates comes when, I think, Crito presents his best argument for escape. Crito says that by accepting the accusers wishes, he would be abetting their wrongdoing. Socrates' reply to this argument is that he would in fact be harming the Laws, which are just. But if the laws are just and the people are unjust, and both seem to be willing the same punishment, then Socrates it seems is caught between a rock and a hard place. If Socrates stays in prison, he will be siding with his unjust accusers, and if he escapes he will be acting against the just laws. But, in the end, he wants Crito to believe that ultimately it is better to ...