The Great Conversation By Norman Melchert
Fatima Hussien
Professor Howie
Introduction to Philosophy
14 February 2017
Paper Topic 1 The Great Conversation by Norman Melchert includes the dialogue that was exchanged between Crito and Socrates. I will be clarifying the dialogue that was exchanged in my own words and later offer criticism and counter-example. Page 107 section 48 e, in The Great Conversation starts off with Socrates allowing Crito a chance to persuade him to believe that leaving the cell against the will of the Athenians is okay. Crito agreed to it, and Socrates moves on to make his premise in section 49 a. Socrates states the we should not do anything wrong willingly therefore no one should do something that they know is wrong. He then says two wrongs do not make it right, and that it is not okay to cause harm, and since it is not okay to cause …show more content…
Then continues to say that injuring someone and someone doing something wrong are no different, therefore self defense would be wrong because you are essentially injuring someone. In other words, eye for an eye is wrong because you are injuring someone, and since you injured someone you are doing something wrong; because there is no difference between the two. Socrates then moves on to his next point, which that one should not go against his word. Socrates then asked Crito that if I leave the city would be going against my word, and will be injuring people. And injuring people is no different from someone doing something wrong, therefore leaving is wrong. He then asked Crito, what should we say if the official catches me and asked me why, should I reply with “The city wronged me, and its decision was not right (108).” Socrates then says he not only would be going against his word by leave but also by him saying “The city wronged me, and its decision was not right (108)” would make him appear ungrateful and be criticizing the city for all the wonderful opportunity that he received while living in the city. He continues to say that
Professor Howie
Introduction to Philosophy
14 February 2017
Paper Topic 1 The Great Conversation by Norman Melchert includes the dialogue that was exchanged between Crito and Socrates. I will be clarifying the dialogue that was exchanged in my own words and later offer criticism and counter-example. Page 107 section 48 e, in The Great Conversation starts off with Socrates allowing Crito a chance to persuade him to believe that leaving the cell against the will of the Athenians is okay. Crito agreed to it, and Socrates moves on to make his premise in section 49 a. Socrates states the we should not do anything wrong willingly therefore no one should do something that they know is wrong. He then says two wrongs do not make it right, and that it is not okay to cause harm, and since it is not okay to cause …show more content…
Then continues to say that injuring someone and someone doing something wrong are no different, therefore self defense would be wrong because you are essentially injuring someone. In other words, eye for an eye is wrong because you are injuring someone, and since you injured someone you are doing something wrong; because there is no difference between the two. Socrates then moves on to his next point, which that one should not go against his word. Socrates then asked Crito that if I leave the city would be going against my word, and will be injuring people. And injuring people is no different from someone doing something wrong, therefore leaving is wrong. He then asked Crito, what should we say if the official catches me and asked me why, should I reply with “The city wronged me, and its decision was not right (108).” Socrates then says he not only would be going against his word by leave but also by him saying “The city wronged me, and its decision was not right (108)” would make him appear ungrateful and be criticizing the city for all the wonderful opportunity that he received while living in the city. He continues to say that