Analysis Of Apology: The Book Of Crito

In the book of Apology, Socrates was mistakenly accused, and the accusation went as follows: "Socrates is an evil-doer who corrupts the youth, and who does not believe in the gods whom the city believes in, but in other new divinities"(Plato 9). During the trial, he denied all the accusations. He denied the would-be corruption of the youth and disclaimed his alleged disbelief in the gods of the Athenian state. However, he was still put in prison unjustly because the elaw had been incorrectly applied. Crito was a book after Apology. It was a dialogue from the main characters Socrates and his friend Crito. The main theme of the book of Crito is about whether Socrates should break the law and escape from execution, or stay and accept his death

penalty. At the very end, Socrates pointed out that trying to escape breaks the law, and any act that breaks the law is unjust even he was mistakenly. Therefore, Socrates refused to escape and decided to accept his death penalty and execution. Socrates responded each of the three arguments Crito brought out. All Socrates responses were really strong. However, are Socrates’ arguments reasonable? Is it necessary to obey every law, as what Socrates stated in his arguments, regarding the law itself is morally justice or injustice? Obeying just law is always a right thing to do. But it is not always necessary to follow unjust laws.
In order to see if Socrates’ arguments are reasonable, we need to know what are the arguments mainly about? The book of Crito is a dialogue between Socrates and his good friend Crito. This argument between Socrates and Crito happened after Socrates was wrongfully imprisoned and announced to death. As the text reveals, Crito visited Socrates in prison before dawn and told him that plans were in place to prepare for his escape and journey to another city( Plato 45b) . However, Socrates refused to do so. Crito gave Socrates three different kinds of arguments for why Socrates should escape from the prison, and Socrates replied to all three by explaining why he should remain in the prison and accept his death sentence.
Crito’s first argument is barely convincing. In this argument, Crito pointed out that he himself would be affected in two ways if Socrates was not escaping. On one hand, Crito would lose a very good friend if Socrates died. On the other hand, it would bring him bad reputation, because most people would think that Crito did nothing to try to save his friend’s life. In addition, many people wanted him to escape. “ Not only will I be deprived of a friend… but many people who do not know you or me very ell will think that I could have saved you if I wee willing to spend money ” (Plato 47 c). In other words, Crito was concerned with the opinion of the majority. To reply this argument, Socrates first pointed that not all opinions supposed to be right, meaning that the opinion of the majority also could be wrong. “ The opinion of many says that escaping from the jail is right-But is it right ” (Plato 48b)? Then Socrates raised a question about what are we concerned with, any opinion, or only good opinion? Socrates told Crito that one should always prefer expert opinion to majority opinion, especially in matters of the soul; one should only listen to the opinion, which benefits him. He brought to life his dilemma to Crito by arguing that if he chose to escape, his life might be saved, but he would be called unjust since he breaks the law. In conclusion, one should not agree with an opinion just because it is the opinion of the majority; instead, one should listen to the opinion only if the opinion itself is right. Therefore, Socrates decided not to follow the opinion of many which told him to escape.
Crito then raised his second argument, which was also fairly weak. In this second argument, Crito speculated the reasons behind Socrates refusal to leave his cell. He told Socrates that if he was worried that his friend, who helped him to escape would get in trouble, then he should not be worried. Since they were his friends and they were willing to do anything for him. In addition, the informers were cheap to buy(Plato 47b). Socrates responded this argument by questioning Crito if what they were planning was just or unjust. “My dear Crito, your eagerness is worth much if it should have some right aim; if not then the greater your keenness the more difficult it is to deal with. We must examine whether we should act in this way or not…”(Plato 48 b). At this point, Socrates clearly showed Crito that both not having enough money to escape and his escaping would bring harm to his friend were not his biggest concern, his most pressing was that if it was right to help him to escape. He thought the act of escaping was unjust, therefore helping him to escape would break the law and was also an unjust act. For this reason, he could not agree with Crito.
Crito’s third argument, which drew from his second argument, brought the conversation to a deeper level with more concerns with the morality of his actions. This argument can be divided into three parts. First, Crito thought what Socrates was doing was unjust, since Socrates gave up his life when he could save it. Second, Crito said Socrates was so wrong to betray his children by leaving them without a father. Third, Crito posted that Socrates was a coward for not facing up to his enemy, and if he stayed, he would only be aiding his enemies in wronging him so unjustly (Plato 48 c-e). Responding to Crito, Socrates pulled out what he believed was his main reason for not escaping. To Socrates, the central was important; the concept was not merely just existing, but living a fruitful and good life. And living a good life meant acting justly. Socrates himself knew what was right and wrong according to his standard. No matter how he was mistreated, his attitude toward the judgment was more important. Therefore, Socrates thought he was doing right by staying since escaping from the jail was a law breaking action, and any action that broke the law was morally unjust.
From the most important argument, the most paramount of these to Socrates was living a just life.

From all three arguments in the book, the most fundamental principle of Socrates is that the really important thing is not just to live, but to live well. Living a good life meant living a life without doing wrong, and not hurting his country and its citizens.. Socrates stated that the laws and the city could be destroyed if he escaped. The laws would lose their force, and a country without laws would be chaos. In addition to harming the city, Socrates thought he would harm the condition of his soul by escaping. His soul would be harmed if he harmed others by breaking the laws. Being responsible for harm to others would cause harm to his soul. Also, he did make a tacit agreement to follow the laws of Athens since he had lived under them for over seventy years, raised his children under them, and did not try to persuade the city to change them(Plato 54). According to Socrates, living justly also meant not breaking or disobeying the laws. To Socrates, nothing could be worse than breaking the laws and escape. Escaping from jail was a wrong action no matter what good reason he had, especially if this might bring harm to his country. Socrates declared, “One should never do wrong in return, nor mistreat any man, no matter how one has been mistreated” (Plato 49b). Socrates stated a truth, law breaking is unjust, while observance of laws is just, because laws are just. However, are all laws just? Should we obey all laws regarding the law itself is morally justice or

injustice?
It is almost impossible for all laws to be just. Humans, who are imperfect made the laws. What is important about the laws are that they need to follow what God says or not breaking what God commands in the Bible. In addition, just laws are laws based on correct reasoning and natural laws. Otherwise, we are not dealing with laws, but people’s will. Second, It is not always necessary to obey unjust laws. There are multiple examples in the Bible where God helped the disciples to escape from the prison by breaking human laws. For instance, God saved Paul from the prison. In Acts 16, it says
But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns of praise to God, and the prisoners were listening to them; and suddenly there came a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison house were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone's chains were unfastened.…（Acts 16:25-26）
Some might say that God commands us to obey the authority over us, and this is true. However, not all authorities are delighted in God’s eyes. In addition, God’s laws are over all laws. It is wrong to obey the laws that break God’s laws. In Socrates’ case, the law had been incorrectly applied. He was mistreated. The laws were used unjustly, hence what Socrates tried to prove in his trial. The accusation went as follows: "Socrates is an evil-doer who corrupts the youth, and who does not believe in the gods whom the city believes in, but in other new divinities"( Plato 9). During the trial, he denied all the accusations, but he was still sentenced to death. Consequently, since the laws are unjustly applied, his decision not to escape from prison cannot be regarded as rational, and it is not always right to follow morally unjust laws. In conclusion, Socrates’ arguments on living a just life is obeying the laws and not breaking any of them are reasonable just under the situation when the law itself is just. It is not always necessary to obey unjust law. One should stand out for his right when he is mistakenly penalized, and one should challenge the laws when they are unjust.