Socrates Parent-Child Argument Essay

Socrates was a famous Athenian philosopher who was sentenced to death for the charges of corruption of the youth and impiety, or the act of not worshipping Athenian gods. In Plato’s dialogue, The Crito, Socrates argues to Crito his reasoning to stay in prison. Socrates gives three major explanations why he should not escape; the first being that if he escapes he it would be unjust to the state, the second being that people must always keep their promise, and lastly we must obey or respect our parents and teachers. The purpose of this essay is to show that Socrates’ arguments are flawed.

In Socrates’ view, one must always keep promises, and if he were to escape, he would break a promise that he made to the state, and therefore he must remain

in prison (Smith, ) . However, the problem that arises in Socrates argument is that if living in a society you must obey their laws, and as a result must accept those laws being fair or just. The Athenian government was built on a democracy; everyone from the state are able to appoint representatives and their job, or promise, is create and manage just laws for the citizens. It is supposed to be an even exchange; the people that live in the state have an obligation to the state, and the state also have an obligation to maintain just laws for its people. Socrates claims that one ought to keep promises, which he would be doing so if he stays in prison. But would that still apply if the other party does not keep their promise? Since Socrates did not commit the charges the government gave him, the government broke their promise they gave to Socrates, that being wrongly accusing Socrates for crimes he did not commit, and wrongly throwing him in prison. Socrates agreed to abide to his duty to the state, but the state broke their promise to treat Socrates justly. Because of being unjustly treated by the state, and the government's failure of keeping their agreement to Socrates, his agreement to the state for staying in prison would not apply. If the government was acting morally and Socrates did, in fact, commit those crimes given, then yes his argument would apply. This, however, was not the case.
In Socrates’ first argument, he does mention that one should never be unjust towards another, even if they are treated unjustly to oneself (Smith, ). But that does not change the fact that the state is still acting in an unjust manner by wrongly imprisoning Socrates, and that Socrates is connecting himself to an unjust law. What about the innocent people in the future being thrown in prison due to this law, by not acting out would that be acting unjustly to them? If Socrates’ highest value is to live justly, how would that be achieved by being executed by an unjust law? Would it be better to eliminate an unjust law and to discontinue it, and to prevent further execution of innocent people, than to die because of this unjust law? He could accomplish a more justly living by advocating the abolishment of the law made by the state rather to die from it.
Lastly, Socrates argues that we must always obey and respect our teachers. If her were to escape prison, he would be disobeying his parents and teacher, which he considers the state to be such. Due to that reason, he therefore should not escape prison (Smith, ). This is another flawed argument given by Socrates. It is based on the assumption that your parents and teachers are always correct. The argument does not consider that the parents and teachers could possibly be wrong, after all, no one is perfect and making errors is inevitable. In Socrates's standpoint, he fails to consider that parents and teachers could be wrong, and believes one must unquestionably follow parents’ orders, and this parent-child role also applies to the state. If one must obey the state like one should a parent, then in that case the state overrides the rights of citizens, ultimately giving authoritarian power to the government, even if the government may possibly be wrong. However, the Athenian government is not authoritarian, it is a democracy. As a result, giving the parent-child analogy to the state would not be applicable to Athens if they were wrong. Like mentioned before, the state is obligated to create and manage just laws, and since they failed doing so by wrongly imprisoning Socrates, then Socrates as every right to speak out against the government.
In conclusion, Socrates was able to escape prison since his arguments for staying are flawed.

His argument for always keeping promises does not apply if one also breaks their promise as well. His parent-child comparison to the state also is flawed, since it completely disregards the possibility of the state being wrong. Socrates’ parent-child argument also implies that one must unquestionably follow the state, and as a result discards citizen rights. Since Athens has a democratic government that protects rights of citizens, the parent-child argument could not be applied to Athens because it implies citizens do not have rights. The parent-child argument could only be applied to an authoritarian government since one must obediently follow the government, at the cost of citizen’s rights. The state was wrong for imprisoning Socrates and executing him for corruption of youth and impiety, and the laws itself was unjust, since there was no exact way of knowing that anyone “corrupted the youth” or one “commits impiety by not worshipping Athenian Gods”, and Socrates is a prime example since he was an innocent man sent to be executed. I also believe that Socrates could done much more by trying to get rid of the laws. He believed living justly was the highest value, but did not consider those in the future that could be executed by these unfair laws. If he did escape, he could of lived a more justly life he if successfully abolished the unjust laws from the

state.