In Euthyphro, what I realized the most from the dialogue is Socrates’ keen sense of logic. I’ll repeat again that I do not believe Socrates was sincere about being a student of Euthyphro, but merely used that as a reason to find mutual ground with Euthyphro; in order to engage in argument for the purpose of finding truth. Let us remember that the whole intention of a philosopher, I think is to seek after truth and be a lover of wisdom, as I believe Socrates was. In Euthyphro, we see a great display of Socrates’ rationality. The fact that he was asking for a standard for the definition of piety is monumental to rational concepts. It reveals to us that Socrates may not have been a relativist, but instead, he believed there is an absolute truth or universal truth, which we must strive to find when arguing; otherwise, what’s the objective of arguing?
Socrates has much to say about what is just and unjust in the Crito, and there is much to consider. Socrates ultimately decides to remain obedient to the law by accepting his condemnation. I’m sure we all understand the various reasons Socrates gives to justify his complacent, so I won’t elaborate in that respect; however, judging by the dialogues, again I’m led to believe Socrates believes in absolutes; therefore, he would have to be arguing about what decision would ultimately be right or wrong. What I gather to be the closing point for Socrates is, regardless of whether his death sentence was right or wrong, he was unyielding about not repaying something unjust with an unjust action. If Socrates thought that his sentence was unjust, he refused to escape because to escape would be acting in an unjust manner against the Athenian law.
I personally perceive Socrates as a logical thinker. I think he would be more of a rationalist than an empiricist because his thinking seems more reasonable than emotional. Unfortunately, I believe his logic was too rigid, and when faced with the decision to escape; his logic could have been relaxed. It seems to me that as a consequence of the imperfect world we live in, sometimes we need to bend the rules of logic in order to be practical in this world; otherwise, there would be no such thing as lying, deceit, or dishonesty. What I mean is this; an unjust law is no law at all. To Socrates, he followed his logic to the consequence of death. It may be logical that if we are to live a just life according to the law, then we must never disobey it, even if the law has wrongly persecuted us; however, the consequence of the false accusation was too costly; where was the greater positive utility? If we were to apply the action of Socrates on a universal modern practical basis, then we would have no need for lawyers trying to appeal the case of someone who has been wrongfully accused if we are to just accept what the state declares right or wrong. Being wrongly accused is unjust, and an unjust law is no law at all; therefore, I believe Socrates would not have been unjust for escaping; nurturing his children, and continue to inspire minds with his teachings. That would be a greater utility than his death