Similarities Between Socrates And Crito

Otman Belkouteb

PHI 1109

Argument Reconstruction & Critique

In "Crito", Plato dialogues an interaction between Crito and Socrates, both of which discuss what is just and unjust. A similar discussion is brought up in Plato's Myth of Gyges, whether we will do what is right under particular standards in a situation. In both texts, Plato is giving us two scenarios of where we can either do something just or unjust. In this paper, I will summarize "Crito" and the "Myth of Gyges", focusing on the ethical dilemma. Followed by the summary I will include my critique of both scenarios.

Plato's "Crito" begins with Socrates in prison due to his sentence by his Athenian peers, he awakes to find Crito in his cell; Crito had bribed the guards to the prison. Crito then tries to convince Socrates to escape to Thessaly, where he can have a safe life. Socrates was not easily convinced as he believed that he should suffer his punishment even if it is unjust, wanting his death to be an example for the jurors and those of Athens. Crito pleas to Socrates with a number of arguments, standing against his enemies in Athens (politicians, craftsman, etc), for the

welfare of his children and friends, to mention a few. Crito also did not want Socrates to die under the pretense his friends did not help him, a selfish reason if I say so myself.
Socrates carefully dismisses Crito's arguments, specifically that of Socrates' friends being viewed differently for not aiding him, saying that the views of a few do not justify the unjust.

Fro this Crito and Socrates begin to enter the heart of the discussion, whether facing the punishment is just or unjust. Crito suggests to Socrates that when facing an injustice one should fight back, but Socrates refutes the argument by saying one should not fight evil with evil and the act of doing this performs an injustice in itself. The argument between Crito and arguments continues back and forth, eventually with Socrates concluding that the act of committing an injustice to prove an injustice is wrong; I disagree, the system is not perfect and we cannot expect it to solve unforeseen issues, but I will discuss this later in the

essay.
The purpose of the "Myth of Gyges" was to show how our actions are governed and how we prefer justice over injustice. Within the piece, a tale is brought up of a man named Gyges. Gyges finds a ring that allows him to become invisible at will. Gyges then uses the ring to have sex with the queen and murder the king to take over the kingdom. The story is supposed to show that whether the ring was given to a just or unjust man, both would commit an injustice. The suggestion is that we act on our desires, in the story the desire being sex and power, with many of our desires being unjust. The idea of a just man actually existing is not dismissed though, for if they do exist and you give them the ring, they would be praised to their face but mocked as fools for not fulfilling their desires.
Plato says that the only reason a man who does good is due to there being no benefit of doing evil, which typically has negative consequences. He suggests that we do not do good because we want to do good but because it would be irrational to do evil and face constant negative consequences; prison, reputation, etc. This myth has one reflect on what they would do in such a situation, an example could even be an authoritative figure, maybe a police officer. Does a police officer constantly commit injustices? Though officers have discretion, they are typically not going to let someone get away with homicide, but I will further this discussion later in this essay.

In regards to Plato's "Crito", as much as I would like to agree with Socrates I cannot. Throughout the dialogue between Crito and Socrates, I put myself in the situation of self-defense, which is not too different from Socrates' situation. Socrates is being put to death and feels it is unjust to fight back, even though unjust actions have been taken against him. Personally, I cannot believe in a system that, itself, commits an injustice and expect it to do what is right without defending yourself; if the system does not play by the rules then why should I? Socrates must have been a better man than I to believe in the system so strongly. I also understand that he wanted to set an example for the people of Athens, but is the act of allowing an unjust death to be committed an injustice? Is the loss of a community educator not a loss to the community of Athens?
Edward Snowden is someone who was put in a similar situation as Socrates. Snowden was said to have committed treason against his country's government for leaking information, but surely this was an injustice that was committed as Snowden serves the government which serves the American people and an unjust act was committed against the American people by the government. Snowden did not commit an unjust act by informing the people as the government was disobeying the laws its officials put in place. No government or institution is perfect, no matter how much we believe in it. Changes are only made through actions and Socrates' inaction was not only a loss to the Athenian people but the philosophical world.
The Myth of Gyges introduces an interesting dilemma of what could be done and what might be done. It is suggested in the piece that if given the ability of invisibility, it will be abused negatively by both a just and unjust man. Socrates is an example of someone who had the ring of Gyges but refused to commit the unjust act of escape. Glaucon's generalization does not apply to everyone, humans are complex creatures, though we may be ignorant and arrogant at times we can be kind and genuine. The argument can be made that Socrates would face some form of negative punishment for his escape but had he left Athens to Thessaly, he would no longer be bound by Athenian law. Seeing as Socrates' punishment was not warranted to the extent of death, his use of the ring would not be unjust and he would face no punishment is Thessaly.
Earlier in the essay, I mentioned the power police officers have, but they can be taken to the extreme of entire governments. We have seen government officials that use their power unjustly but we have seen an equally, if not greater, number use their powers for good, in many cases holding other politicians responsible for the unjust abuse of power. Just and unjust actions are already committed with or without the ring of Gyges existing, but this is not to say that every individual would commit an injustice if given the opportunity. An example of this would be prisoners who save prison guards, there have been a series of incidents where prison guards suffer from health issues (heart attacks) or harm by other prisoners and some prisoners save and protect the guards. Courageous acts are committed every day by firefighters, policemen, and civilians. Civilians do not have to commit acts of kindness, some running into burning buildings or towards burning cars to save others.
In conclusion, though Socrates did not deserve his punishment an injustice was committed against him, one in which he recognized but decided not to act on. Both, Glaucon and Socrates, based their decisions on generalizations that should have been further explored. Socrates should have explored other punishments and questioned the court versus relying on it to be just; he assumed the people of Athens were with the court or so it seems. Glaucon's generalization should have explored exceptions in the community as power already exists but not every individual used it unjustly. Just think of Mahatma Gandhi's quote "Be the change you want to see". The act of being just starts with each of us individually, not society or any institution.