Critical Engagement Papers On Socrates' Arguments In The Apo

Critical Engagement Papers On Socratess Arguments In the Apology And

Critical engagement papers on Socrates’s arguments in the Apology and Crito. Students are expected to write a paper of 1700 words on Plato’s Apology and Crito (1700 words total, not 1700 words each). This paper will state and analyze the main arguments offered by Socrates in each of these two texts, and will provide a critical assessment of the arguments’ merits. Do they successfully/convincingly establish the theses that Socrates aims to establish? Here as always, I will highly value a solid defense of a claim I disagree with, but will penalize a mindless agreement with a claim I happen to think is true. Make every effort to abide by the required word count. Papers that stray too much (below or above) the word count will be penalized.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Plato’s dialogues, the Apology and Crito, serve as foundational texts for understanding Socrates’s philosophical method and his arguments concerning justice, virtue, and the nature of the good life. These texts provide a window into Socrates’s reasoning as he defends himself against accusations of impiety and corruption of the youth, and later, considers the implications of obeying or disobeying the state’s laws. This paper critically analyzes Socrates’s main arguments in the Apology and Crito, assessing their strengths and weaknesses, and evaluating whether they convincingly support Socrates’s theses about living a virtuous life and respecting the law.

The Main Arguments in the Apology

The Apology primarily features Socrates’s defense speech, where he articulates his philosophical mission and refutes the charges against him. His central argument is that he benefits the city by questioning established beliefs and encouraging moral virtue, which aligns with his claim that an unexamined life is not worth living (Plato, 38d). Socrates’s dialectical method, or elenchus, is presented as a divine mission to awaken others to their ignorance and pursue moral truth. He contends that his pursuit of philosophical inquiry is divine and that he acts with the gods’ assent, turning the accusation of impiety on its head (Plato, 24b).

A critical aspect of Socrates’s argument is his claim of moral integrity and consistency, asserting that he would rather face death than cease practicing philosophy. This demonstrates his commitment to living in accordance with virtue and truth, not succumbing to societal pressures or fear of death (Plato, 29a). His assertion that he is a gadfly, stimulating the polis to philosophical reflection, underscores his view that his suffering is in service of divine will and social progress (Plato, 31c).

While compelling, Socrates’s arguments face scrutiny regarding their persuasive power to external audiences. His unwavering stance and humorous defiance may alienate some, and his vague divine mission raises questions about the objectivity and epistemic status of his moral claims. Nonetheless, the core of his defense rests on the authenticity of his lifelong pursuit of virtue and his unwavering commitment to truth.

The Arguments in Crito

In the Crito, Socrates confronts the dilemma of escaping or accepting his death sentence. His primary argument against escape is rooted in social contract theory: he has a moral obligation to obey the laws of Athens because he has benefited from them and implicitly consented to their authority (Plato, 49a). Socrates posits that breaking the law would undermine the social fabric, harm the law itself, and corrupt the virtues he embodies.

Socrates emphasizes that justice and correctness must guide one’s actions, asserting that doing injustice—even in retaliation—is wrong and would harm his soul (Plato, 50b). He maintains that the law is like a parent that nurtures and sustains him, and violating it would be unjust and damaging to his moral integrity. Socrates also considers the consequences of fleeing, arguing that it would set a bad example and undermine the rule of law, which is essential for a well-ordered society (Plato, 52a).

A critique of Socrates’s argument highlights that it presupposes implicit consent to the laws, which might be questioned, especially given Socrates’s personal life and choices. Additionally, one could argue that the moral duty to preserve life sometimes conflicts with the duty to justice, and Socrates’s absolute refusal to escape could be interpreted as moral rigidity rather than nuanced judgment.

Critical Assessment of Socrates’s Arguments

Socrates’s arguments in the Apology effectively highlight the importance of virtue and the examined life. His claim that morality and divine command underpin his actions lends philosophical depth, though it relies heavily on accepting the divine mission premise. Critics may question whether his reasoning convincingly persuades those outside his philosophical circle, particularly in the context of Athenian political realities.

In the Crito, Socrates’s commitment to justice and law is compelling but is not without its flaws. His implicit contract theory assumes voluntary consent to laws, which may not hold convincingly for all individuals, especially in cases where laws are unjust or oppressive. Yet, his emphasis on moral integrity and social cohesion underscores the importance of respecting institutional authority, a principle that resonates with modern civic ethics.

Ultimately, Socrates’s arguments in both texts succeed in illustrating his core theses: that the pursuit of virtue is paramount and that one must uphold justice and law even at great personal cost. However, they also reveal the limits of rigid moral absolutism, inviting debate about moral flexibility and civil disobedience.

Conclusion

Socrates’s arguments in the Apology and Crito articulate an unwavering commitment to living a virtuous life guided by divine and moral principles. While his defense against accusations of impiety in the Apology emphasizes the importance of the examined life, his reasoning in the Crito underscores the significance of social harmony and adherence to law. Critical evaluation suggests that although his arguments are philosophically robust within his framework, their persuasive power depends on accepting certain premises about divine authority and social contract. These texts continue to serve as vital sources for understanding ethics, justice, and civil responsibility, prompting ongoing philosophical debate about the balance between individual conscience and societal law.

References

• Plato. (1992). The Apology of Socrates (G.M.A. Grube, Trans.). Hackett Publishing Company.
• Plato. (1997). Crito (G.M.A. Grube, Trans.). Hackett Publishing Company.
• Brickhouse, T.C., & Smith, N.D. (2013). Socrates on Trial. Princeton University Press.
• Kraut, R. (2018). Socrates and the Good Life. Harvard University Press.
• Vlastos, G. (1991). Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher. Cornell University Press.
• Annas, J. (2011). Ancient Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
• Burnet, J. (1924). Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo. Oxford University Press.
• Broad, C.D. (1952). Five Types of Ethical Theory. Harcourt Brace.
• Gill, M. (2000). Socratic Moral Psychology. Cambridge University Press.
• Nussbaum, M. C. (1986). The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.