How Socrates Argues against Crito

Socrates and Crito In this paper, I will show that Socrates’ argument concerning staying to drink the hemlock juice as ordered by the State is a successful argument. First, I will reconstruct the argument, and discuss why it is significant. Then, I will show that the argument is successful, and why. I will then consider possible objections to what I have said, and how I would reply to them. Finally, I will summarize the contents of the paper, showing what has been accomplished by my analysis.

Socrates begins his argument from generalized principles that are accepted as true and then moves to a specific conclusion, and thus his argument is deductive in nature. Crito’s argument, on the other hand, is inductive in that he moves from a specific observation to a generalized principle. Crito views Socrates’ sentence as unjust since Socrates is not guilty of corrupting the youth. Socrates views the sentence as just since it is delivered by the seat of justice, which is the Athenian court.

To evade the sentence would be to render an injustice to the court’s authority and to send a message to the people of Athens that rebellion against the lawful authorities of the earth can ever be justified. Socrates views such a rebellion as a crime in and of itself and it is not one he wants upon his soul.

He provides a host of other reasons to justify his own position on the matter, but to better understand them it is important to put the issue into the proper context. After the trial at which Socrates is condemned to drink the hemlock juice for corrupting the youth of Athens, Socrates abides by the ruling and accepts his punishment as just since it comes from the authority of the state. Crito, one of his young followers, urges Socrates to flee Athens and make his escape while he still can.

He argues that the sentence is unjust since Socrates is not guilty of the crime for which he has been convicted. Socrates argues in response that to evade the pronouncements of the state is to evade and undermine authority itself and that this would be a bad lesson for one and all should he try to do it.

Moreover, Socrates gives a rather practical and phlegmatic argument to Crito at the outset of Plato’s dialouge: “Why, Crito, when a man has reached my age he ought not to be repining at the prospect of death.” In other words, Socrates points out the impracticality of attempting to evade the law as an old man when it is not as though he has the vigor or sprightliness of youth to serve as his defense.

Though Crito’s arguments are convincing on one level, Socrates’ arguments are convincing at a higher level and help to illustrate the totality of what he has been teaching all along—which is that it is better to die in innocence than to live in open rebellion against the just ordering of society.

Socrates constructs his argument in this manner: first, he asserts that if he fled, he would cause the people of Athens to lose faith in the authority of the State—they would murmur to themselves that if Socrates did not listen to the authorities, why should we? His escape would endanger the very foundations of the city, which is built upon respect for the law. He argues that a city whose laws are not respected is a city that will not stand for long.

If he were to be the one responsible for setting a bad example to others with regard to abiding by the laws of the state, he would be guilty of something he does not want on his soul. A city that has no order or respect for order is a city that invites chaos. Socrates says he has no wish to invite chaos to Athens. The premises upon which Socrates situates his argument are: 1. Crito is not threatened by Socrates’ demise; 2.

Life is not about self-preservation but rather about living well with the time that one has. When the time is up, one must not seek to extend it unlawfully but rather to be united to the good above by doing as little harm to others as is humanly possible—including with respect to one’s person, one’s profession or one’s society; 3.

Extending his life so as to care for his children is immaterial; he has good friends who will look after his children when he is gone; 4. Escaping his punishment would undermine the principles of justice, law and order in the city and thus cause harm to the city as the risk of chaos could arise in the wake of such actions. These premises are followed logically and convincingly in Socrates’ argument. Socrates’ argument is coherent, cohesive, deductive and understandable.

The significance of his argument stands out in the fact that the main reason he gives for not escaping as Crito urges is that the state is more important than Socrates and that in order for the State to live in harmony, the citizen must respect the decrees of the State—even if one believes they are unjust. The argument is successful because Socrates ultimately is able to paint himself as a martyr, which is something that has a heroic color and quality to it.

Socrates concludes for instance: “Now you depart in innocence, a sufferer and not a doer of evil; a victim, not of the laws, but of men.

But if you go forth, returning evil for evil, and injury for injury, breaking the covenants and agreements which you have made with us, and wronging those whom you ought least to wrong, that is to say, yourself, your friends, your country, and us, we shall be angry with you while you live, and our brethren, the laws in the world below, will receive you as an enemy; for they will know that you have done your best to destroy us. Listen, then, to us and not to Crito.” It is with these words that his argument finds its worthy conclusion.

It is with these words that Socrates shows the way forward in truth and justice—abiding by the decrees of the state and not attempting to circumvent them or to put himself above what the state has decreed should be.

Socrates shows the ultimate demeanor and the ultimate example of humility and honor in accepting his fate, no matter how unjust it may seem—because to accept one’s fate is the ultimate act of justice in deference to the will of God—and to run, as Crito urges, is essentially to run from God.

Socrates all along has urged his followers to pursue the good—the one, the good, and the true—the Transcendentals that all unite in the one God.  It is now that Socrates show how willing he himself is to pursue the one, the good, and the true and embrace the will that God has laid out for him.

Possible objections to what I have said are that an unjust state should not be followed or supported by the citizens because the state itself is not in alignment with the one, the good and the true. Rather than accept the unjust judgment of the city, Socrates should align himself with those who protest, foment a revolution and overtake the city, installing themselves as the legitimate rulers based upon their own righteousness and morality.

Socrates and his followers have shown themselves to be the most just, the most righteous and the most moral in the city—so why should they not rule? My response to this argument is that the city has not shown itself to be totally corrupt by condemning Socrates to death but rather to be error on this particular matter. Moreover, in any revolution the worst elements always tend to rise to the top, as Joseph Conrad stated (Mulry, 2007).

Were Socrates to foment revolution, the very infrastructure of the state could be undermined, especially if there is no trust in the ways of Socrates and his followers by the rest of Athenian society. Rather than risk a great social unrest and instability, it is better for Socrates to die a martyr and his teachings to be passed on to the next generation by his survivors.

Furthermore, Socrates himself gives the argument against such an uprising by advocating on behalf of the goodness of the state: “For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him” (Plato, n.d.).

The law does not prohibit those who are unhappy with the state from leaving. Crito and his followers are free to leave Athens if they view it as unjust, but they should also remember that the state has been good to them in so many other ways that they should think twice before condemning the state in the same way Euthyphro once condemned his own father.

These words are echoed in the Apology when Socrates states that “the difficulty, my friends, is not in avoiding death, but in avoiding unrighteousness; for that runs faster than death. I am old and move slowly, and the slower runner has overtaken me, and my accusers are keen and quick, and the faster runner, who is unrighteousness, has overtaken them.

And now I depart hence condemned by you to suffer the penalty of death, and they, too, go their ways condemned by the truth to suffer the penalty of villainy and wrong; and I must abide by my award - let them abide by theirs.” In other words, Socrates argues it is better for him to die in a state of morality than to live in a state of immorality and unrighteousness.

For him to attempt to escape death would be like the soldier who throws down his coat of arms and abandons the way of life that has come to define him just so that he might preserve his life (which is never really his but must be forfeited to God or Fate, as man himself has no say in the matter). Socrates thus alludes that the only person who can harm the better.