Plato's Crito: My Response

In Plato's Crito, Plato describes Socrates' last days in jail before he was condemned to death. During these last days, he is visited by a friend, Crito who tells him of a collective effort to help Socrates escape before being condemned to death (Plato, lines 1-34). Socrates is not inclined to escape because he feels that he should not break Athenian Law (Plato, line 35). Crito comes up with a series of arguments, first positing that Socrates does not escape then he brings bad opinion upon his friends who seemed to not care. Crito further says that anyone in Socrates' position would choose to escape rather than stay (Plato, line 35). Crito then argues that Socrates is letting his enemies win, first by defaming him and also by letting them kill him. Crito lastly argues that Socrates is abandoning his sons and leaving them without a father (Plato, line 33). Socrates has a very logical and moral response to these claims. First, he asserts that just because an opinion is popular does not make it true, thus staying in jail will have no effect on his friend’s reputation (Plato, line 34). Furthermore, he asserts that the true question lies in whether it would be just for Socrates to escape (Plato, line 66). Socrates asserts that breaking Athenian Law by escaping would do more harm to the law and to society and that he should instead try to convince the laws to let him go instead (Plato, line 90). The effects on his sons or his enemies are peripheral to the central question of the morality of escaping.

If I were in Socrates' position I would escape. I would escape because I do not wish my enemies to have such power over my end, especially my defamation and death. If I die it should be on my own terms. I would wish to fight on equal terms. In the Crito Socrates argues that such concerns are trivial to the overall question of breaking the laws and the contract of society. This social contract is a bind that Socrates, being a citizen of Athens for 70 years, would never break. I do not believe that Socrates is correct in asserting that breaking one Athenian law is the same as breaking all of them and that then Socrates would be considered an outlaw in all countries. To admit such a thing does not allow for any shades of gray in the argument. Other people have escaped from jail and it has not lead to great harm (unless they are mass murderers). Most people end up escaping to another country and never do harm to the original country again. Since Socrates is an upstanding citizen it makes no sense to assume that his decision to escape would harm anyone at all. Escaping jail does not lead to the dissolution of society's morals; putting people in jail for unjust reasons does.

Furthermore, I would escape because as an individual I must look out for my own self-interest. My interest is to convince my fellow citizens that I am an upstanding citizen and that the accusations are false. I cannot do that if I am dead. Luckily Socrates, like Martin Luther King, Jr., had pupils who continued his work after death, but I think that Socrates should have escaped in order to convince people that maybe the accusers were wrong. Under such a political regime anyone could accuse anyone else of breaking the law and use demagoguery to convict them.

I, however, do not disagree with Socrates' decision to stay. I feel that every individual has the right to follow their own moralistic path so long as that path does not lead to the harm of others. Crito's assertion that Socrates' decision to stay will negatively affect his friends is untrue as well as glaringly manipulative. It seems that Crito is being selfish about Socrates' position and wishes to manipulate his feelings for his friends in order to get him out of jail. Crito's further assertion that Socrates' decision will negatively affect his family is also not true because Socrates has already been condemned to death and even in exile will not likely see his family.

I do not agree with Socrates' reasoning for staying. Socrates reasons that he must obey the laws since they are like parents (Plato, line 90). To do injustice is never good, so why would doing an injustice in response to an injustice be good? Thus he must also obey the people's will even though it is unjust. The people have unjustly condemned Socrates using the law. Plato, in writing this dialogue, gives a separate voice to the Laws of Athens in order to distance them from the voice of the people (Plato, 90). Since the people are using the law to judge Socrates however, it is either the people siding with the law or the law siding with the people. Can you really separate the intentions of one from the other? I don't think so. It is a stretch of reason to claim that the laws are just and should not be broken while the people supporting the laws are unjust. I believe Plato had a hard time justifying Socrates' decision to stay which is why he even comes up with a separate voice for the laws. If you acquiesce to the injustice done to yourself doesn't that mean that you normalize that injustice for everyone? Will not elites press charges against anyone they wish if there is no opposition to it?

I do not agree with his reasoning about living rightly. Socrates says that in order to live rightly, you must do no wrong (Plato, lines 70-73). You cannot even do wrong in order to prevent another wrong. While I believe that no two wrongs make a right (as the saying goes) I do believe that it is justified to do a lesser wrong in order to prevent another. Socrates would be preventing his own unjustified death by escaping. Sure escaping is wrong, but I consider accepting an unjust death even worse. This is where the black and white of Socrates' morality meets the grey tones of reality.

To conclude, if I were in Socrates' position I would not decide to stay but would flee the unjust punishment of my enemies. I, however, do not disagree with Socrates' decision to stay. He had his own reasons, he did not harm anyone by submitting to the will of the people. We must respect those reasons, though upon further scrutiny they seem weak and not well justified.

Work Cited

Plato. The Apology, Phædo and Crito, trans. by Benjamin Jowett. Vol. II, Part 1. The Harvard Classics. New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 1909–14; Bartleby.com, 2001. www.bartleby.com/2/1/. 2/10/2014