Socrates was given a fair chance to convince his fellow citizens during his trial. Since he failed to do so, he is now forced to obey their decision even though he and Crito agree that it was wrong.
Writes: Spencer Case
Plato's Crito describes a conversation that takes place in 399 BC in an Athenian prison, where Socrates awaits execution.
Not long ago, an assembly of more than 500 Athenian citizens condemned Socrates for corrupting the youth and for being dishonest, disrespecting the city's gods. Socrates denied these charges. Moreover, he insisted that his public philosophy, while not very subversive, was for the benefit of Athens and in the service of the god Apollo.
However, the jury was not convinced and found him guilty. They were further angered when, during the penalty phase of the trial, Socrates suggested that his “punishment” should be a lifetime supply of free meals in the prytaneum, a central hearth, an honor usually reserved for Olympic champions. These games, in turn, were not well played, and Socrates received the death penalty. A religious celebration delayed the execution for several weeks, but it now seems inevitable.
Enter Crito, a friend with deep pockets and an even deeper love for Socrates. Early one morning, Crito appears in Socrates’ cell with an escape plan. He bribes the jailer and, with the help of other friends, arranges for Socrates to flee to Thessaly, another Greek city-state. There Socrates can live out his remaining years in exile with his family, who will also be leaving Athens. Everything is done carefully, except for the most difficult part: convincing Socrates to go along with the plan (43a-44b, 45c).
Anyone who knows Socrates knows that this will not be easy to do. However, Crito is determined to save his friend’s life, and so he comes armed with a set of arguments. Crito knows that Socrates is not afraid of death, and so he wisely appeals to the considerations most likely to resonate with Socrates: his sense of honor and his obligations to others.
Crito begins personally: if Socrates is executed, then he and the others will lose an irreplaceable friend. Moreover, people will wonder why Socrates’ friends did not do more to save his life when they had the means to do so. They will ask: Is Crito so rich that he refused to part with a little money to save his friend’s life? (44c)
Socrates also has obligations to raise and educate his sons, who will be left fatherless if Socrates is executed (45d).
Finally, passively accepting his unjust fate, Socrates will give his enemies what they want, allowing evil to triumph over Socrates' own self. Death is the easier, and cowardly, path. Continuing to live is the harder, and braver. Fleeing this world would deny evil a victory (45e-46a).
Socrates listens patiently and carefully to Crito’s reasoning. Appeals to reputation are wrong, he argues. After all, we should care about what is truly right, not what seems right to most people. Appeals to personal relationships are no better. Socrates cannot educate his children by giving them an example of unjust behavior to follow. Nor could he be a good friend. As for helping his enemies – what they want is to harm him. If Socrates were to behave unjustly, he would give them what they want by harming his own soul.
With these arguments, Socrates is able to convince Crito that justice is the only issue that really matters. If Socrates can show that escape would be unjust, then none of Crito's points would carry any weight (46b-48d).
Having neutralized Crito's arguments for escape, Socrates makes his case for remaining in Athens and accepting his fate. Since two wrongs do not make a right, the injustice of his conviction that escape should not be done and accepting his punishment should not affect how we think about this decision. In other words, unjust behavior does not license Socrates to do something unjust to himself. Crito agrees, and thus Socrates makes his case that escape would be unjust to Athens.
There are three interrelated argumentative themes here. First, escape would set a precedent for others, leading to such illegal behavior in large numbers. Second, the laws and institutions of Athens had made it possible for him to flourish for 70 years; to disobey would now be ingratitude, akin to striking a parent. After all, Socrates was not obligated to spend his entire adult life in Athens. He could have moved if he did not like the rules of Athens. His decision to stay and participate in the military and civil institutions of Athens constitutes a tacit agreement to respect Athenian laws (49a-54e).
Socrates was given a fair chance to convince his fellow citizens during his trial. Since he failed to do so, he is now forced to obey their decision even though he and Crito agree that it was wrong. Adapt Liberale.al
edition
t7 live
