Crito
To flee or not to flee, that is the question. Whether it is right to stay true to your values or to fight for justice; but which one has a better stance? As much as Crito tries to convince Socrates that he is in prison for the wrong reasons, Socrates chooses to stay. Socrates chooses to stay because he has the willingness to accept the penalty. His just laws are his conscience and moral obligation, while the unjust laws are convention. Those who believe that Socrates should flee may seem like the right thing to do since he is wrongfully convicted, but I believe that the choice of Socrates staying is the right thing to do. Socrates set the belief that to do wrong is never good and one should not go against that value. If one is wronged,
…show more content…
one cannot impose wrong in return. This is where the status quo of justice is seen as a contradiction to the idea of never causing harm. I will be arguing the fact the Socrates has a stronger stance and I will attempt to showcase both of Socrates and Crito’s argument of why Socrates should stay or flee. In Plato’s Crito, Socrates is wrongly convicted of corrupting the youth and impiety and is sent to the death sentence.
His friend, Crito, finds a way to Socrates and tries to convince him to flee, but refuses to because of his agreement to stay true to the state of Athens. Socrates’ philosophy is to always stick to the truth and his moral duties, but Crito’s status quo was justice, which is the position of Athens. The status quo for the state is to always give a helping hand to friends and family who are in danger and to potentially harm the enemies. This is why Crito uses this position to argue with Socrates that his choice to accept his sentence to be killed is unjust, and not only is Socrates going to be effected by it, but Crito himself and Socrates’ family. Crito explains to him that if this action is taken, the enemies will triumph over him and all he knows. Crito tries to further explain that the people Socrates trust are the ones who will triumph over him. Both Crito and Socrates both have their arguments, which show the nature of justice and …show more content…
injustice. In the event of Crito coming to talk Socrates out of his death sentence, Socrates explains to Crito why he must stay due to his moral obligations and it is his duty to do what is just. Even though Socrates knows his sentence was unjust, what made him truly stay was the principle. First Socrates explains to Crito why the opinion of others is not the most highly valuable opinion, that escaping is such an unjust action that it would harm Socrates’ soul, and the reputation for the city of Athens. Socrates argues that if one listens to the public and not the master or trainer, one will suffer harm. Here, I believe that Socrates is saying that if one does not listen to the master or trainer and listens to others, one will potentially harm their souls. This shows how the majority can manipulate one with the wrong and unjust actions. Along with this, Socrates refuses to leave prison because he will be breaking his most important principle, which is to live life well, not just live and go with the motions. If one has a harmed or ruined soul, life is no longer worth it. With this all being said, Socrates believes that life needs moral and just values to live well. Another reason why Socrates does not flee is because of the harmful consequences to him and his state if he were to flee. By wanting to flee, Socrates will be inflicting harm to his soul and his city of Athens. Socrates believes that if one is responsible for the harm caused to others, they will potentially harm their soul. Consequently, after being a part of Athens for seventy years Socrates says to Crito is how the city has provided the conditions for his birth, nurture, education and life, as well as raising his children under them, and not persuading the city to change the laws. Given these points of life, the city of Athens, and his agreement to the city, it is better for Socrates to stay in jail and accept his consequence of the death penalty. In contrast, while some agree that Socrates staying true to his principles is just and his decision to stay is the right thing to do, some argue that Crito has a better stance to why Socrates should escape. Crito has three arguments, that he will be losing a friend, if he does not succeed in getting Socrates out he will be given bad names and a reputation, and lastly Socrates’ responsibility to his children. The first argument is how the death of Socrates will change Crito’s reputation. He claims that if Socrates decides to die, he will one, lose a friend and two people will give Crito a bad name if he does not rescue Socrates. Crito also believes that if Socrates goes through with the death penalty, he will not be able to live well and be educated properly. He goes on by saying that Socrates must escape and be brave for the well being of his children. With this in mind, Crito tries to convince Socrates with his own principles that are important to him. Crito makes a few great points to Socrates. While it is important to live, care, and love for your family and children, abandoning them is not the just thing to do. Others can also see where Crito is coming from when the state has wrongfully convicted Socrates. If one was captured and sentence to death for the wrong reason and the ability to escape was not so hard to do so, I believe that many would go and flee. Overall, this objection to Socrates choice to stay is also favorable. While it is true that Crito makes an easy point for Socrates to leave and escape his death sentence, as said in my argument section, Socrates does not care about the majority opinion, that the opinion of an expert is more accountable.
Though Crito and Socrates’ children will be without a friend or father, Socrates argues that a life well lived is more beneficial. With this, I believe that Socrates choosing to stay and argue with Crito was the right thing to do. Overall, Crito’s standpoints were not strong enough convictions for Socrates to flee. As a philosopher, I believe that Socrates has lived a life of moral obligations and just laws that going against it all in the end will not give him the “life well lived” but to just defeat the whole purpose of
it. In the final analysis, the decision for Socrates to stay was the just thing to do. Crito’s arguments are extremely narrow compared to Socrates’. Socrates effectively refutes the one strong argument he gives about children. Socrates' consequential argument is not necessarily compelling, but if we accept his primary argument about only lives that are lived well having value, then his second argument concerning his agreement with the state to follow its laws is a compelling one, therefore Socrates was right to decide to remain in jail.
Crito on the other hand believes civil disobedience is sometimes morally legitimate in certain cases. He states “Your present situation itself shows clearly that the majority can do not just minor harms but very worst things to someone who’s been slandered in front of them” (pg.79) Crito tries to reason with Socrates by telling him how by abiding to these “just” laws is what got him in prison in the first place, and how he is going to be unjustly prosecuted because of it. He goes on by trying to persuade him that by escaping prison it wouldn’t classify as civil disobedience since he wouldn’t be harming anyone. If he stayed in prison it would seem as cowardness and seem irresponsible. Since Socrates has a responsibility towards his family
...dditionally, Socrates believed that escaping would show that the people who tried him and found him guilty that they had in fact done the right thing. This would further their assumptions that he was corrupting the minds of people by running away and disobeying the law. If he had escaped, he may have been invalidated and may not be as important historically as he is today. Whether or not it made an impact on Athens or the rest of the world, Socrates did what he believed was right for himself and for the people. I believe that Socrates did what was honorable at the time. His honor and incite in to the way that people should live has been carried on through history is proof that people still value his ideas and reasoning.
"Do we say that one must never in any way do wrong willingly, or must one do wrong in one way and not in another?"3 Socrates tries to help people understand that mistakes are human nature, however to do wrongful things on purpose should not be tolerated. Crito agrees with Socrates statement, "So one must never do wrong."4 Crito believes in what Socrates is expressing, yet he wants Socrates to perform an unreasonable action and escape from prison. A big thing for Socrates is trust and being loyal to his family and city. "When one has come to an agreement that is just with someone, should one fulfill it or cheat on it?" Crito believes one should fulfill it. Which Socrates then states "If we leave here without the city's permission, are we harming people whom we should least do harm to? Are we sticking to a just agreement, or not?" Socrates thinks that if you commit to something you need to be a man of your word and follow through. If you make an agreement with someone, you should keep your word to the fullest extent. Socrates thinks he needs to adhere to the agreement of being in prison. He believes he shouldn’t leave unless someone tells him otherwise and to the just thing by upholding the decision. Again, Socrates doesn’t want to offend anyone or show disrespect, which shows his strong desire to always to the right
King was well aware of the laws, and knew that his protests, even peaceful, would have resistance to it. Yet, at the same time King didn’t care that it would’ve been illegal. He clearly stated that any law that he feels is unjust, he would fight against it whether it was legal to do so or not. The same can be said of Socrates in Crito, because he knows he got there for disobeying the law. In the eyes of the law, he corrupted the youth of Athens by exposing them to questioning and examining everything around them. When he is questioned why he doesn’t want to attempt to escape his death, he states that he feels it is unjust to escape. Socrates did what he believed his job was, which was to enlighten the youth to the unjust ways of society. While the way he was punished for it was unjust, Socrates stated that he has lived a happy life, and if he can’t rightly persuade the Laws of Athens to change its mind and let him go then he can accept
For these two articles that we read in Crito and Apology by Plato, we could know Socrates is an enduring person with imagination, because he presents us with a mass of contradictions: Most eloquent men, yet he never wrote a word; ugliest yet most profoundly attractive; ignorant yet wise; wrongfully convicted, yet unwilling to avoid his unjust execution. Behind these conundrums is a contradiction less often explored: Socrates is at once the most Athenian, most local, citizenly, and patriotic of philosophers; and yet the most self-regarding of Athenians. Exploring that contradiction, between Socrates the loyal Athenian citizen and Socrates the philosophical critic of Athenian society, will help to position Plato's Socrates in an Athenian legal and historical context; it allows us to reunite Socrates the literary character and Athens the democratic city that tried and executed him. Moreover, those help us to understand Plato¡¦s presentation of the strange legal and ethical drama.
When Socrates was sentenced to death, his friend Crito offers to help him escape, but he refuse to escape. He explains to Crito that if he were to escape he would be running away his whole life. He would stay at Athens and comply with the sentence as set by Athens law and die for his cause. Another reason that he gave Crito for not escaping was that he was already death alive and that he was too old to be running away .
Socrates' response to Crito's question “Why don't you escape if I'll provide you the means?” is that the primary criterion for moral action is justice, and escaping would be unjust, so he should not escape. Socrates reasons that if he were to escape, this would break the system of law enforcement since avoiding punishment when a city has deemed it necessary makes the law ineffectual if there is no consequence for breaking it. He would be a 'destroyer' of the law (Crito, 51a), an injustice he does not wish to commit.
He says that the citizen is bound to the Laws like a child is bound to a parent, and so to go against the Laws would be like striking a parent. The Laws conclude, then, that Socrates has no reason to break the Laws now: he has had every opportunity to leave or disagree, and the Laws have made no effort to deceive him in any way. In fact, until now, Socrates has expressed great satisfaction with the Laws. There is a part of us, which is improved by healthy actions and ruined by unhealthy ones. Socrates refers to an argument with Crito in which he considers whether or not it is right for him to escape without an official discharge. If it turns out to be right, he must make an attempt to get away and if not, he must let it
Socrates was not guilty as charged; he had done nothing wrong, as seen in the Apology. Not even a priest could tell Socrates what he had done wrong religiously, Euthyphro wasn’t even able to give Socrates a precise definition of piety. It is then questioned by Crito why Socrates would remain to face a penalty for a crime he did not commit. In the Crito, it is explained why, although innocent, Socrates must accept the penalties his peers have set upon him. It is his peers that will interpret and enforce the laws, not the law which will enforce it. Even if the enforcers don’t deserve attention and respect because they have no real knowledge to the situation, Socrates had put himself under their judgment by going to the trial. Therefore, Socrates must respect the decisions made by the masses because the decisions are made to represent the laws, which demand each citizen’s respect.
He states that if he were to escape he would not be living honorably which he describes in Plato 's “Apology” as living a unexamined life and to him he would much rather die. Socrates states, “one must not even do wrong when one is wronged, which most people regard as the natural course” (Plato, 268). Socrates even though his sentence maybe biased and not morally right still believes that he must follow what he is condemned to. Through this he implies that even if we are cheated of fairness we must still do what is honorable and not fight it. He explains that the majority of people in his case would justify it to escape because they were sentenced for something that is completely moral. I disagree with Socrates in that if I was in his place, I would gain freedom and face my enemies for they wronged
Socrates political, moral and social obligations are linked to a theory called the Social Contract Theory. The overall intent of the social contract is meant to enhance the society we live in and promotes a sound, balanced, law abiding society. Socrates illustrates to Crito, that he must accept his punishment administered to him by Athens law. Furthermore, he exemplifies that the laws he has obeyed his entire life, allowed him to thrive within Athens (Friend). He indicates that he made a conscious decision, when he reached the age of maturity, he would reside in Athens. He was fully aware of the laws and how the Athenian government handled justice. Although, the social contract is not signed legal binding contract, Socrates feels fully obligated
...uments are completely different. Crito wants Socrates to escape because he doesn’t deserve to die because he did nothing wrong. Socrates argues back that if he escapes he will be breaking the law. Which is the thing that he is trying to uphold. Socrates believes that escaping will go against all the things he has been arguing and teaching the youth.
Finally, Socrates considers the consensus argument in his decision to stay in prison. Escaping from prison broke his consensus with his city and such an act constituted injustice. Therefore, it constituted maligning one’s soul and, therefore, it was better to die than live with an unjust soul.
“Are we to say that we are never intentionally to do wrong, or that in one way we ought not to do wrong, or is doing wrong always evil and dishonorable, as I was just now saying, and as has been already acknowledged by us? (Dover p.49)” Socrates’ standard is that he refuses to see justice as an eye for an eye. He believes that logical arguments and persuasion should be the defense of the accused. Socrates believes that since he cannot convince the people who ruled against him that there is no other option then to pay the sentence that he was
...ns. Why would he do this if he did not see the laws of Athens as just? In order to fulfill the agreement he has made with Athenian law, Socrates must accept the punishment he is given, though he feels that his being punished is Athens wronging him. It would be wrong, by his view, to escape from prison, though he would not be pursued, because he would be breaking his agreement to obey Athenian law. Since he and Crito previously agreed that one must never do wrong, he simply must stay in jail until his death. This is merely one example of the way in which Socrates uses a method of logical dialogue in order to make his point. He appears to be unmatched in his skills of deduction and consistently demonstrates his love of knowledge and truth. Socrates exemplifies all that is philosophy, both as a student and a teacher, because of his constant, active pursuit of wisdom.