Give me Free Food or Give me Death

In these two posts, I discuss Socrates counter-assessment of an appropriate punishment and his thoughts on death. 

Crito: Socrates Obeys

Whereas Socrates adamantly defended his personal lifestyle in Apology, in Crito he is resigned to accept the punishment decided by the jury: death.  Crito, his buddy, has come to Socrates to try to convince him one last time why he should leave the city.  Crito gives four main reasons.  First, he says that if Socrates dies, he will lose a great friend.  Second, he says that if Socrates dies that people will think that Crito was just too cheap to save his friend.  Third, he says that Socrates is betraying his family by letting himself be put to death.  Fourth, Crito tells Socrates that letting himself be put to death is evil and shameful.  Socrates responds to each of these reasons during the course of the dialogue.

First, Socrates says that if he runs away, his friends will be under suspicion by the government and will be in danger of losing their own property.  Second, Socrates says that we ought not listen to the opinion of the majority.  Only the opinion of the few experts is important.  To prove this point, Socrates uses an analogy.  He says that if you want to do physical training, you should seek the advice of a doctor or a trainer.  If you disobey this person's advice, you are likely to end up hurting yourself.  When you disobey a doctor, you harm your body.  But when you listen to bad advice about morality, you harm a much more valuable part of yourself (soul/morality/character).  Third, Socrates says that if he left the city, he would be making his children strangers in a new place.  If he left them behind in Athens, they will have friends of the family to take care of them whether Socrates is dead or alive.  Fourth, Socrates says the right thing to do is to stay in the city and accept his death.  There are three main reasons he gives for this.  He says that he has made a just agreement with the city (rather, he imagines a conversation with the city's laws about whether or not he would be wronging the city by fleeing).  He says that by staying in the city, he has tacitly agreed to obey its laws and accept its rules.  Socrates never left the city except for military service.  He had ample time to leave if he had objected to the rules and laws of the city.  If he disagreed, he either should have persuaded the city or leave.  Socrates did neither.  It also seems like he should be grateful to the city.  If not for the city's laws, his parents never could have gotten married.  The city also provided for his education and helped in his upbringing.  In addition to the tacit just agreement and the principle of gratitude, Socrates also says that the city is to a citizen as a parent is to a child (or like a master is to a slave).  In other words, the city is in a position of superior power over the citizen.  A citizen must accept the punishment of the government just as a slave must accept the punishment of its master.

Socrates on Death

In Apology, Socrates talks a lot about death.  He first says that fear of death is the result of ignorance, since we do not really know if death is an evil or a blessing.  He says that it is better to fear known evils, such as being wicked, than it is to fear unknown things, such as death.  He also says that there is good reason to think that death is a blessing.  Either death is lack of perception or death is a relocation of the soul.  If death is lack of perception, then it is much like a very restful sleep, so it must be good!  If death is relocation of the soul, then one can spend time with interesting people (and even philosophizing), so it must be good!  Socrates says that either way, one cannot harm a good man in life or in death.  Since the only real harm is harm to your virtue (morality), nobody can harm you but yourself.  The only real harm you should worry about is harm to your soul (harm to your virtue/morality).  It is easier to avoid death than it is to avoid being wicked.  So really, if we fear anything, we should fear being wicked.

Counter-Assessment: Free Food!

After the jury finds Socrates guilty and Meletus asks for a penalty of death, Socrates has the option to provide a counter-proposal for his punishment. He begins by saying that he has done a great service to the people of Athens because he was constantly questioning them about their lives and trying to get them to think about important things like virtue and morality. For such a service, he says he should be treated to free meals at the Prytaneum (where people like Olympians were honored). He then says the he will not do himself harm by saying that he deserved punishment. He says even if he were exiled, he would get kicked out the next city for the same thing probably, so he would have to continue wandering. He says he cannot stop asking questions because "the unexamined life is not worth living". He finally says that he could afford a 1 mina fine, although maybe his sons could help him with up to 30 mina. Unsurprisingly, the jury rejects his counter-proposal and they sentence Socrates to death.

The Defiant Defense of Socrates

The Apology of Socrates: A Defiant Defense

1. No appeals to pity (34c-35c).  It was common practice for defendants to bring family to court to make a show of pity.  Socrates notes this and explicitly rejects this as a strategy for persuasion.  He thinks it is best to appeal to reason than to appeal to emotions.  He also asks his audience to focus on the content of his speech and not his style (18a).
2. Ridicule of accusers
   1. Why would I corrupt others and thereby risk harming myself? (25e)  Socrates points out that to corrupt someone is to make them wicked.  Wicked people harm those who are close to them.  So why would he knowingly want to make the people around him harmful?
   2. I cannot be harmed by anyone! (30d)  Socrates says that the real harm is to harm your soul, or our virtue.  It is worse to execute a man unjustly than to be executed unjustly.  Meletus is a worse man than him, so he cannot harm Socrates simply by being unjust.
   3. Why don’t the victims of my corruption accuse me themselves? (33d)  Socrates points out that none of those he has apparently corrupted have stepped forward to accuse him of crimes.  Their families have not complained, either.
3. Appeal to Oracle (21a)  Socrates explains how his friend was told my the Oracle at Delphi that there is no man wiser than Socrates.  This got him started on his quest to try to find someone who was truly wise.  After questioning poets, politicians and craftsmen, Socrates was unable to find someone who possessed wisdom.  He figures that this is why he is so unpopular, but he things of it as a divine quest.
4. Reminds jury of his divine sign (31d)  Socrates also talks about his divine sign, which is a voice that speaks to him to warn him not to do something.  The voice never tells him what he should do.  It only tells him what he should not do.
5. I am god’s gift to this city (literally!) (30e-31a) I was placed at this post (28d)  Socrates claims that the gods got him started on his quest to find a wise man, and that he has been sent to Athens to be a kind of gadfly.  His role is to wake people up and make them examine their own lives.  He says that he will be hard to replace unless the gods decide to provide Athens with another gift.  

Many Definitions of 'Pious' in Euthyphro

Over the course of Euthryphro, Socrates and the title character have a long discussion about what is 'pious'.  Euthyphro begins by giving an ostensive definition, or definition by example.  Socrates rejects this and asks for an abstract conceptual definition.  Euthyphro then says that what is pious is what the gods love.  Socrates that since the gods disagree, some will hate something that others love--making that thing both god-loved and god-hated.  This is a contradiction, so we must reject this definition.  Euthyphro then modifies his definition to include only what ALL the gods love.  Socrates then asks if the gods love it because it is pious or if it is pious because the gods love it.  Euthyphro asserts that the gods love it because it is pious.  Here we have an example of circular reasoning.  To define piety in terms of gods' love and to claim that the gods love it because it is pious is a circular argument.  It is logically valid (If P, then Q.  If Q, then P.  Therefore, P if and only if Q).  Yet we have not actually learned anything about piety.  Socrates then tries to help out his interlocutor and offers up this distinction: piety is a part of justice.  Euthyphro then insists that it is the part of justice that is concerned with taking care of the gods.  Socrates clarifies that most examples of care mean that the thing that is cared for is made better in some way, but surely this cannot be the kind of care with which we provide the gods.  Euthyphro says that to be pious is to care for the gods like slaves care for their master.  Socrates asks what the purpose of our service is.  Euthyphro says that we are to make sacrifice and pray.  Socrates characterizes this as a sort of trade between gods and humans, according to which we sacrifice something and then ask for something in return in the form of prayer.  Socrates then asks if this trade somehow benefits the gods.  Euthyphro says no, there is no benefit, but agrees that the gods are pleased by this trade.  And here we end up back at a previously rejected definition.

The Socratic Question, The Socratic Method

The Socratic question is the question about who exactly Socrates was in real life.  He did not write anything down himself.  All we know about him comes from the writings of others.  Some of these sources are very dubious.  Plato wrote the most complete record of Socrates's life, but we have no way of knowing how far he stretched the truth.  One thing is known for sure; Socrates was not a pretty man.  In spite of this fact, he was quite popular with young men.

The Socratic method is a method of questioning.  Socrates does not lecture or give speeches.  Rather, he asks questions of his pupils.  He asks very pointed and critical questions, sometimes even leading his interlocutor into a philosophical trap!  Today we use this term to refer to any kind of questioning that a teacher does in order to encourage a student to give the answers to questions on his or her own.  Sometimes it still means leading students into a trap by asking leading questions.  Don't worry, I won't try to trap you!  But it's not a bad rule in general to be wary of leading questions when you're dealing with philosophers.

What is Pious?

The main question that arises in Euthyphro is about what is pious.  In everyday language, being pious (having the quality of piety) means being reverent and respectful to god(s).  Euthyphro equates piety with justice.  In other words, he thinks that what is just is decided by what the gods love.  What the gods love is the first conceptual definition of pious that Euthyphro offers.  Before offering this conceptual definition, he attempted to provide an ostensive definition of pious; this kind of definition is also called a definition by example.  In other words, Euthyphro tried to define the word by providing an example of something that is pious.

Socrates dismantles the first conceptual definition offered by Euthyphro (that what is pious is what the gods love) by pointing out that the gods disagree often and that some things will be both god-loved and god-hated.  But to say that a thing is both god-loved and god-hated is a contradiction!  Clearly this definition is unacceptable.

Euthyphro then amends his definition.  He says that what is pious is whatever all gods love.  At this point, Socrates asks if being loved is like being seen, carried or led.  Euthyphro agrees that they are all alike because something is only loved, seen, carried or led if there is someone or something else that is doing the loving, seeing, carrying or leading.  Then Socrates asks if pious things are pious because they are loved or because they are pious.  They agree that pious things are pious simply because they are pious.  Pious people and pious things do not need to have any other person or thing acting upon them in order for them to be pious.  Yet now we have a circular definition.  Euthyphro first says that pious things are things that are loved by all gods.  Second, he says that the gods love pious things because they are pious.  He attempts to define piety in terms of what the gods love.  Then he says that the gods love it because it is pious.  The definition refers only to itself.  It creates a circle of reasoning.  It is the same thing as saying, "I like coffee because it's good and it's good because I like it." or "That is morally wrong because it's morally wrong".  In technical terms, circular reasoning makes the mistake of assuming the truth of the conclusion as a premise for an argument.  If we are to define piety in terms of what the gods love but also assume that the gods love it because it is pious, then we assume the truth of our claim when trying to explain it.