Phil 100 Prof. Michael Rosenthal
22 April 2015
Paper 1 Topic 2 Socrates, accused of making the worse into the stronger argument, corrupting the young and not believing in the same Gods the city believes in (24b), was found guilty and sentenced to death. After being sentenced and awaiting his penalty, his friend, Crito, visited Socrates. While awaiting his death, Crito attempted to convince Socrates that he should flee from Athens and escape his death sentence. Why might Crito try to convince Socrates to break the law and escape from Athens? Crito explained to Socrates that if Socrates were to die, not only would Crito be deprived of a friend, but Crito’s reputation would be harmed as well. Crito believed that if he were to allow Socrates to die, people would think that Crito valued money more than his own friends (Socrates dying would indicate that Crito did not spend money in order to save him) (43d). Crito’s concern for his reputation and the thoughts of the majority prompted Socrates to raise a question, “why should we care so much for what the majority think?” (43d). Crito responded by saying it is important to show concern for the opinion of the majority, “…one must also pay attention to the opinion of the majority,” (44d). Crito believed that paying mind to the opinion of the majority is important because “…the majority can inflict not the least but pretty well the greatest evils if one is slandered among them,” (44d). In other words, the majority has the ability to perform either the greatest good or the greatest evil to some person, thing, law, etc. if a consensus is reached among all. When presented with Crito’s encouragement to flee Athens and escape his death sentence, Socrates was quick to disagree with Crito’s idea to flee Athens and pay mind to the opinion of the majority. Socrates believed that only the opinion of those who are wise should matter, “the most reasonable people, to whom one should pay more attention, will believe that things were done as they were done,” (44d). My thesis aligns along the opinion of Socrates in which that one should not pay attention to the opinion of the majority but rather the “wise man,” in other words, those who may have expertise in the matter. I will argue that Socrates held a stronger argument than Crito. Socrates’ first premise is that the majority is haphazard. He said, “…the majority could inflict the greatest evils, for they would then be capable of the greatest good, and that would be fine, but now they cannot do either. They cannot make a man either wise or foolish, but they inflict things haphazardly,” (44d). By saying this, Socrates is claiming that the majority is not able to effectively inflict neither good nor evil because the majority lacks plan, order, and direction. Because the majority lacks the ability to inflict either the greatest good or the greatest evil more than haphazardly, one should not pay attention to the opinion of the majority since they are not able to bring their opinion forward meaningfully or effectively. Socrates’ main point is that one should not pay attention to the opinion of the majority but rather one should pay attention to the opinion of experts. He said, “Consider then, do you not think it a sound statement that one must not value all the opinions of men, but some and not others, nor the opinions of all men, but those of some and not of others?” (47). Socrates went on to say that one should only value the good opinions and not the bad ones, and that the good opinions were only those of wise men, and bad opinions were of foolish men (47). Socrates used a trainer as an example of this point, “Should a man professionally engaged in physical training pay attention to the praise and blame and opinion of any man, or to those of one man only, namely a doctor or trainer?” (47b). Socrates went on to state that if a man engaged in professional physical training were to listen to the opinion of the majority (what to eat, how much to exercise, use of drugs, etc.) rather than strictly professionals on the matter, he may hurt his body, and that a body in bad condition is not worth living (47e). Socrates proposes an strong, undeniable example here to support his point that one should not pay attention to the uneducated opinion of the majority but only the knowledgeable opinion of the expert. Socrates developed his argument past the point of whose opinion is more important but into the question of what kind of life is worth living. Although the majority may believe that Crito should have spent money to pay the guards and aid Socrates’ escape from Athens, Socrates argued that doing so would be an unjust action, and living unjustly is not a life worth living. He said, “…Is life worth living for us with that part of us corrupted that unjust action harms and just action benefits? Or do we think that part of us, whatever it is, that is concerned with justice and injustice, is inferior to the body?” (47c). Again, Socrates further pushed his argument of only paying attention to the opinion of experts; “We should not then think so much of what the majority will say about u, but what he will say who understands justice and injustice, the one, that is, and the truth itself,” (47c). The majority may believe that Socrates should not die and he should escape death, however, Socrates argued that this is a matter left up to the experts of justice and injustice, and living unjustly to follow the opinion of the majority is not a life worth living. Crito’s main arguments for wanting Socrates to escape his death involved money, Crito’s reputation and the upbringing of Socrates’ children. With these in consideration, Crito argued that the majority would have believed that Socrates should have escaped. However, Socrates stated, “…those considerations in truth belong to those people who easily put men to death and would bring them to life again if they could, without thinking; I mean the majority of men,” (48c). This is the same majority that chose to put Socrates to death, however Socrates effectively argues that although he may or may not have been wrongly put to death due to the opinion of a majority, he does not have right to perform a wrong act in return. Socrates begins this point by stating one must never do wrong; “Do we say that one must never in any way do wrong willingly, or must one do wrong in one way and not in another? Is to do wrong never good or admirable…” (49). Here, Socrates argued that in general, one should never perform any wrong acts. He further developed this point to support his argument (we should not pay attention to the majority) by stating “nor must one, when wrong, inflict wrong in return, as the majority believe, since one must never do wrong,” (49b). Here, Socrates argued that escaping would be inflicting a wrong act in return, therefore acting unjustly – and living unjustly is not worth living. In conclusion, I believe that Socrates proposed a stronger argument than of Crito’s regarding that matter of whether or not one should pay attention to the opinion of the majority. Crito’s main pint to support his argument-one should pay attention to the majority- was that the majority has the ability to “inflict not the least but pretty well the greatest evils if one is slandered among them.” Socrates may have been a living example of this infliction of evil among one who is slandered, however, he argued that the majority are haphazard, therefore not capable to effectively inflicting the neither greatest good or evil. To go on, Socrates argued that because the majority is haphazard, one should only pay attention to the opinion of experts, and effectively supports this point with an unarguable physical trainer analogy. Furthermore, Socrates argues that the experts are the only ones who know the distinction between just and unjust actions. Following an unjust opinion simply because it belongs to a majority would corrupt us, and living in this way is not worth living, according to Socrates. In addition, performing an unjust action in response to another unjust action would be performing a wrong, and Socrates and Crito both came to agreement that one should never perform a wrong, even in return to a prior inflicted wrong. Overall, I agree with Socrates; one should not pay attention to the opinion of the majority but only those of the wise. Although the majority has the ability to slander someone, that doesn’t mean that they are the most educated on the individual and therefore whatever opinion the majority may hold may not be arguable due to lack of expertise on the matter. There are many issues that a majority of the society may have a shared opinion of, however, only the opinion of those who are actually experts on the matter would hold any significance to bring about change or solution to the issue. Just like Socrates said, an uneducated opinion would only inflict good or evil haphazardly.