There is an arrogant kind of sarcasm to this argument. He shows that indeed others do not know anything at all but they think they do. In fact this is what made the accusers mad enough in the first place to put Socrates on trial. To Socrates this is wicked because those who are wise know that they know nothing. “To fear death, gentlemen, is no other than to think oneself wise when one is not, to think one knows what one does not know (Apology 29).” This goes back to his statements that he is only wise in that he knows that he knows nothing, while others profess knowledge about things they know nothing about.
They continue to bring up the topic of pious and unpious actions. Euthyphro claims “the pious is to do what I am doing, to prosecute the wrongdoer…not to prosecute is impious.” Then, Socrates exclaims he is the defendant in his case because he believes it is difficult to accept the common knowledge the people believe about the goods, since there is no plausible evidence. As the dialogue continues, Socrates claims that “different gods consider different things to be just…for they would not be at odds with one another unless they differed about these subjects…(page 9, 7e)” Then the same things would be both pious and unpious. Simply, the nature of Socrates is to question and further complicate matters by counter arguments. Then Socrates states that the matter is finding who the wrongdoer is rather than how he must be punished.
After the examination Socrates concludes that the act of escape would be just and he would be morally unjustified and committing the act. The first argument that Crito presents to Socrates brings up the issue of what the majority think. Crito says, “Many people who do not know you or me very well will believe I might have saved you had I been willing to give money, but that I did not care to do so.” (Grude, Pg 47) Crito’s argument is clearly concerned with his own reputation, especially with what the majority
For instance, Socrates asks “Do not the good do their neighbors well, and the bad do them evil? Meletos answers “Certainly” (26). After this Socrates goes back to his accuses and asked if he intentionally or unintentionally corrupted the youth. When Meletos says Intentionally he brings his point back to how he said neighbors won’t hurt their own neighbors
Socrates says that "one must never willingly do wrong" because wrongdoings damage the soul. I agree with Socrates beccause no matter what you should never return a wrongdoing with a wrongdoing. He uses a anti-retaliation principle and even though most people dont believe in retaliation, I do believe in it. Socrates wants to say that escaping from prison would be unjust, but he must also say whom he would be wronging. His best answer is that he would be wronging the Laws of Athens.
By persecuting his father is piety. But Socrates discards his definition because it is in fact not a definition but rather an example. It does not give reason on why things are pious. So, Euthyphro rebounds by claiming piety is what is pleasing to the gods. He says that “ The things and the men that are pleasing to the gods are pious, and the things and the men that are displeasing to the gods are impious.” Socrates approves of this definition because it is of a very generalization.
Plato argues that Aeschylus’ theories have holes because of deception or death. While living the good life one can logically avoid obstacles such as deceit. Queen Clytaemntestra rule in Oresteia is an example of this. Plato addresses the exact ways to ultimately reach true happiness in the Republic and tells the audience specifically how to achieve the good life. Although there are vague similarities between both plays, we notice the path some characters chose do not lead to the good life no matter how wise they seem to be.
Dwyer uses this expression to show that he does not concur with the intentions of the law enforcers who claim that their actions are all for the people’s safety. He uses this expression as a light term that is not as offensive as other terms would have been, yet it achieves its purpose. Dwyer might have chosen this expression to show that he was angry with the current situation, but he did not want to be offensive by using other terms. Biased language is depicted by Dwyer’s use of the expression “illegal aliens”. Labelling a person as an illegal alien portrays that the individual, as opposed to his or her actions, is unlawful.
His friend Crito comes to his rescue except, Socrates declines this rescue as he explains that doing so would be a breaching of the laws. His reasoning behind is, that by escaping he is favoring those who have condemned him and failing that which is fair and just, the laws; even when these have wrongly condemned him. So he questions whether he ought to break the laws or not. (Plato 49-51) Whether he was persuasive in terms of his escape that is very clear as he does feel he should side with the law, the reader could perceive it differently. While there is a clear understanding of what is right and wrong, looking at both points of view it seems that the overall point is lost to Socrates.