Plato - Crito

[thecoalition]

So for one of my classes I have to read Crito. The assignment afterwards is to write a critical essay about the decision that Plato has made and then compare it to my own decision had I been in the same posistion. I must defend the moral permissability of my decision.
So seeing as how I am not a huge fan of Plato this assignment is difficult.

Do you all think I should use Plato's own philosophical thoughts/ideas for or against his decision or should I throw some Kant or Mill at him? So far in this class we have only gone over Kant, Mill (and utilitarianism in general), Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle.

[gaia.plateau]

Totally depends on the decision/position. Let us know what you decide on.

[thecoalition]

yea i have to actually sit down and read it first. its not long at all im just not motivated. i should probably do it tonight but i may push it off until tomorrow. i seem to work my best when i do things the night before or day of.

[gaia.plateau]

Try adding hookah, it works for me

[erufiku]

+1
I was reading Freud while puffing on a hookah the other day.

[Snacks]

I say go full out with Plato, that's alteast what I would have done.

+1
I was reading Freud while puffing on a hookah the other day.

Geez, I hate that perverted bastard! No hookah can ease the pain.

[thecoalition]

yea so apparently crito was socrates not plato....oops.
either way the jist of it is: socrates is in jail, his pal crito comes along to try to get him to escape out of athens in the night because his death is the only future. Socrates says .... fuck that. Crito whines about how people will think ill of him because if Socrates does not leave jail then it will look like Crito and friends never even tried to help. Socrates tells Crito its cool and the only people that matter are those that are honorable. Those that are honorable will already know that Crito tried to help. So then Crito whines a little more and Socrates poses the argument of the state law vs. the individual.

In this argument he says that: The state is the nurturer of man. It allows his parents to marry. For man to be birthed. Raised and educated. Marry himself, live and birth his own children. He believes that as a man of 70, he had plenty of time to choose not to live in Athens. By not leaving he entered into an agreement with the state that he would follow by their laws and they would continue to nurture him.
He explains this through a series of thoughts but thats the main idea. So he ends up deciding to stay in jail and face his sentence because it is only right that he obey the wishes of the state.

I will more than likely go ahead and defend this position. I think (im a criminal justice major so yea called me lame) that in the same position I would also stay in jail and face my sentence. I will also use the ideology of Mill to go ahead and defend this whole thing.
Unfortunately Kant is fucking ridiculously hard for an ethics class which is only a requirement. And I think virtue ethics are bullshit. I have always loved utilitarianism so Im gonna go with what I feel is best.