Socrates' Moral Dilemma: Justice Vs Exile in Plato's Crito

In Crito, Plato recounts Socrates’ conversation with his good friend Crito, as Crito comes to help Socrates escape to exile. In his account of the conversation, Plato describes Socrates’ struggle on whether or not it is just to escape, as he works up to his conclusion that in the end it is unjust and violates the laws of Athens. When Crito first hears of Socrates’ intentions to stay, he argues with Socrates that he must leave. Crito states that if Socrates doesn’t leave, not only will he lose a dear friend, but people will also get the wrong conception of their relationship. Those in the general public will think Crito and the rest of their friends were not willing to spend the money to save Socrates, and chose personal wealth over their friendship will look bad or else he will make all his friends look bad. Plato writes, “Surely there can be no worse reputation than to be thought to value money more highly than one’s friends…” (Plato, Crito 44c) Socrates, considering his friend’s point,

First he decides to address whether the jury was in fact unjust in their judgment. According to what they had concluded before the argument, Socrates and Crito both agree that one can willingly do no harm or commit unjust acts knowingly, and thus one can never do wrong in return, since then you would be knowingly committing harm, thus committing an unjust act. “One should never do wrong in return, nor do any man harm, no matter what he may have done to you.” (Plato, Crito 49c) Even if they determined the ruling to be unjust against his earlier claim, Socrates thinks that then the law would respond that he agreed to accept the verdict of the jury, and thus anything else would be contrary to his word, and thus unjust. Thus, since this holds to be true, they must conclude whether it harms other people if Socrates leaves, or will it do