Dominant interpretations of Plato's Crito attempt to reconstruct the text deductively, taking the arguments in the famous Laws’ speech as consisting solely in the application of general principles to facts. It is thus conceived that the principles and facts are grasped independently of each other, and then the former are applied to the latter, subsequently reaching the conclusion that Socrates must not escape. Following the lead of Cora Diamond, who argues against this ‘generalist interpretation’, I argue that the Laws’ speech essentially involves an exercise of our moral imagination through which both principles and the facts to which they apply are grasped. This is not to say that a deductive argument is absent from the Laws’ speech. Rather, for the first time, we understand how the deductive arguments in the Laws’ speech can function through imagining a life in which these arguments make sense. The Crito is an attempt to exercise the readers’ imagination, thereby presenting ethics that is both personal and objective. Understanding the Laws’ arguments essentially requires the readers’ imaginative involvement with Socrates’ personal story, but they still have objective import.

中文翻译：

---

个人和客观伦理：如何阅读克里托

柏拉图的主要解释克里托试图以演绎的方式重构文本，将著名的劳斯演讲中的论点视为仅在于将一般原则应用于事实。因此可以设想，原则和事实是相互独立地掌握的，然后将前者应用于后者，从而得出苏格拉底不能逃避的结论。在反对这种“通才解释”的科拉·戴蒙德（Cora Diamond）的领导下，我认为法律的演说本质上涉及对我们道德想象力的锻炼，通过这种想象力，原则和它们所适用的事实都得到了把握。这并不是说法律的演讲中没有演绎论证。而是第一次，我们理解法律演讲中的演绎论证如何通过想象这些论证有意义的生活而发挥作用。这克里托试图锻炼读者的想象力，从而呈现既个人又客观的伦理。理解法律的论点本质上需要读者对苏格拉底的个人故事进行富有想象力的参与，但它们仍然具有客观意义。