“Be kind, because everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.” – Plato.

#1•1. Crito’s first attempt to convince Socrates to flee appeals to reputation and the opinion of the majority. What is Crito’s argument, exactly?

• Here’s a good way to do it (though not the only good way):

• 1. One always ought to avoid doing that which hurts the reputation of someone else.

• 2. By allowing his own death and not fleeing, Socrates would thereby hurt Crito’s reputation. (This is true since, among other things, people might think Crito had been too cheap to bribe the guards).

• 3. Therefore, Socrates ought to avoid his own death; he should flee.

{Where, would you say, does the argument go awry? (It’s deductively valid as rendered here.)}

• #2• 2. In premise/conclusion form (consisting of about

5 – 7 propositions) give Socrates’ (eventual) response to the reputation/majority opinion argument, trying to making it logically valid.

•1. Surely, only some opinions of some people ought to be valued.•[“One must not value all the opinions of men, but only some and not others, and not the opinions of all men. (47a2)”]•2. Those that ought to be valued are those that express genuine knowledge. •3. Therefore, we ought to value some opinions, but only insofar as they express genuine knowledge. [“You (Crito) were wrong to believe that we should care for the opinion of the many about what is just, beautiful, good, and their opposites.” (48a6-8)] •[In a way, this is to say we should not respect mere opinion at all – only knowledge – although Socrates doesn’t outright say that.]

• #3• 3. Reminiscent of the famous quote from the

Apology, at one point Socrates refers to “life worth living for us.” Given what else he says, what is a necessary condition for life’s being worth living, according to Socrates? Is this consistent with his Apology claim that the “unexamined life is not worth living”?

• Answer: Its being a just/virtuous/ethical life is the necessary condition of its being worth living.

• #4• 4. Socrates states that “one must never in any

way do wrong willingly”. Do you agree? How might one disagree (i.e., what might such a person be thinking)?

• Can you find a case where someone should do wrong willingly?• [The right kind of counter-example would be a case where

someone morally ought to do something morally wrong. It’s easy to find cases where, say, for financial reasons, I (financially) should do something morally wrong.]

• #5• 5. Arguably the most famous argument from the

Crito is what we might call the “argument from agreement” (49e5-7) which builds on a point Socrates makes about harming the city. What, exactly, is the argument from agreement? (State it carefully in premise/conclusion form.)

• 1. Morally/Ethically, people should always keep their agreements. [“When one has come to an agreement that is just with someone, should one fulfill it or cheat on it?” (49e4)]

• 2. Socrates made an agreement to obey the city’s laws, and in this case the city’s laws dictate that he should be put to death. [Death was the verdict of the jury, and the city’s laws require that verdicts be carried out.]

• 3. Thus, S. should now keep his agreement, i.e., accept his death sentence.

• #6• 6. It’s not difficult to make Socrates’ argument

from agreement valid; the issue is going to be whether all of the premises in the argument are true. Take the formulation of the argument you came up with in the previous question and argue against one (and only one) of the premises.

• 7. Comment: is your objection in the previous question a good one, or is the argument from agreement sound after all?

• #7• 7. Comment: is your objection in the previous

question a good one, or is the argument from agreement sound after all?