Socrates Benefactor Argument

The second reason Socrates gives against escaping with Crito is The Benefactor Argument. This follows that the State is Socrates’ benefactor, and one must always obey their benefactor, and so Socrates ought not to escape because to escape would undermine the benefactors. The State is one's benefactor, to Plato, in that by living in Athens for years Socrates has benefited from the protection of the state and used the publicly available benefits, like buildings and roads. He has thus indicated a willingness to accept the Laws and to abide by the decisions made by the Athenian court, regardless of the outcomes, a form of political obligation.

However, the main issue with the Benefactor Argument comes when we consider that the State is not a traditional benefactor and that actually Socrates holds a Social contract to his fellow citizens and not the State itself. The State does not produce

Socrates himself calls himself a benefactor to the state in Apology (Plato, 1997a, §36d), stating that his philosophy is a sizeable addition to the lives of Athenians and so he deserves free meals instead of the death penalty. Socrates explains that “we [Athenians] have great evidence for this, that we and the city satisfy you” (Plato, 1997b, §52b). This is important as if we have dismissed the idea of Socrates’ obligation to be towards the State as a benefactor then we must understand it as towards his fellow citizens in Athens and only then could one understand why Socrates would feel obligated to not escape. Socrates goes on to ask of Crito “if we leave here without the city's permission, are we mistreating people whom we should least mistreat?” (Plato, 1997b, §50a) meaning that he believes that if he were to escape this would be harming the citizens of Athens. This is significant more so when one understands that in an Athenian court, it is the citizens who decide the fate of the prosecuted. Consequently, Socrates should believe he holds a