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...…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 person is the better person himself by abandoning his morals and his philosophical position.

In summation, this paper has shown that the argument of Socrates against Crito, who wants Socrates to flee his captivity and save his life, is a successful argument because Socrates shows that the laws of the state matter more than the will of the individual. Socrates does not attempt to foment a revolution or to escape with his own life but rather welcomes the death hat has been decreed for him. He asserts that the state has the prerogative to judge of men and in his case it has availed itself of its prerogative, and all knew that this would be the case going in. Socrates does well not to bemoan his fate or to try to justify leaving. He shows rather that were he to leave he would be undermining the principles of the state and risk destabilizing the society that the state has nurtured for so many years. When one disrespects the laws, he disrespects the order and natural good of social organization as well as the good that exists as the transcendental ideal above all. Socrates further states that the best a man can do in life is to pursue the good and to live well—and Socrates has done this and he is not about to deviate from that rule now that he is near the end of his life. To escape would be to put himself above the state and he has never done that. The counter argument against Socrates falls flat for it assumes that Socrates is above the state—but the reality shows that this is not the case, and Socrates shows that his followers should be fine with that.