Socrates vs. Crito: Why Obeying the State Is Just

Introduction

This paper argues that Socrates' case for staying to drink the hemlock — as ordered by the State — is a successful argument. First, the argument is reconstructed and its significance is discussed. Then, the paper demonstrates why the argument succeeds. Possible objections are considered and answered. Finally, a summary draws together what the analysis has accomplished.

Socrates begins from generalized principles accepted as true and moves toward a specific conclusion; his argument is therefore deductive in nature. Crito's argument, by contrast, is inductive — he moves from a specific observation to a generalized principle. Crito views Socrates' sentence as unjust because Socrates is not guilty of corrupting the youth. Socrates views the sentence as just because it was delivered by the seat of justice — the Athenian court. To evade the sentence would be to commit an injustice against the court's authority and to send the message that rebellion against lawful authority can ever be justified. Socrates regards such rebellion as a crime in itself, and one he does not want upon his soul.

Context: The Trial and Crito's Challenge

After the trial at which Socrates is condemned to drink the hemlock for corrupting the youth of Athens, Socrates accepts his punishment as just because it comes from the authority of the state. Crito, one of his young followers, urges Socrates to flee Athens while he still can, arguing that the sentence is unjust because Socrates is not guilty of the crime for which he has been convicted.

Socrates responds that to evade the pronouncements of the state is to undermine authority itself, and that this would be a damaging lesson for everyone. Moreover, Socrates offers a practical and measured argument to Crito at the outset of Plato's dialogue: "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 an old man attempting to evade the law when he no longer 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 — they illustrate the totality of what he has taught all along: that it is better to die in innocence than to live in open rebellion against the just ordering of society.

Reconstructing Socrates' Argument

Socrates constructs his argument as follows. First, he asserts that if he fled, the people of Athens would lose faith in the authority of the State — they would reason that if Socrates did not obey the authorities, why should they? His escape would endanger the very foundations of the city, which is built upon respect for the law. A city whose laws are not respected will not stand for long. Were Socrates to set a bad example with regard to abiding by the law, he would be guilty of something he does not want on his soul. A city with no order is a city that invites chaos, and Socrates says he has no wish to invite chaos to Athens.

The premises upon which Socrates situates his argument are:

1. Crito is not himself threatened by Socrates' death.
2. Life is not about self-preservation but about living well with the time one has. When that 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 as possible — to one's person, one's profession, and one's society.
3. Extending his life in order to care for his children is immaterial; he has good friends who will look after them when he is gone.
4. Escaping his punishment would undermine the principles of justice, law, and order in the city, causing harm by risking chaos in the wake of such actions.

These premises follow logically and convincingly in Socrates' argument. The argument is coherent, cohesive, deductive, and understandable. Its significance lies in the central reason Socrates gives for not escaping: the state matters more than any individual, and for the state to live in harmony the citizen must respect its decrees — even if one believes them unjust.

Why the Argument Succeeds

The argument succeeds because Socrates ultimately presents himself as a martyr — a posture that carries heroic and moral weight. Socrates concludes:

"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."

With these words his argument reaches its worthy conclusion. Socrates shows the way forward in truth and justice — abiding by the decrees of the state rather than attempting to circumvent them or to place himself above what the state has decreed. He demonstrates the ultimate humility and honor in accepting his fate, however unjust it may seem, because to accept one's fate is the ultimate act of justice in deference to a higher good. To run, as Plato records Crito urging, is essentially to run from that higher good. Socrates had long urged his followers to pursue the good, the one, and the true — and it is now that he shows how willing he himself is to embrace what has been laid out for him.

Conclusion

In summation, this paper has shown that Socrates' argument against Crito — who wants Socrates to flee and save his life — is a successful argument because Socrates demonstrates that the laws of the state matter more than the will of the individual. Socrates does not attempt to foment revolution or to escape, but rather welcomes the death that has been decreed for him. He asserts that the state holds the prerogative to judge its citizens, and that all parties understood this going in. Socrates does well not to bemoan his fate or to justify fleeing. He shows instead that were he to leave he would undermine the principles of the state and risk destabilizing the society it has nurtured for so many years. When one disrespects the laws, one disrespects the order and natural good of social organization, as well as the transcendental good that stands above all.

Socrates further states that the best a person can do in life is to pursue the good and to live well — and he has done precisely this. He is not about to deviate from that rule now that he is near the end of his life. To escape would be to place himself above the state, and he has never done that. The counterargument against Socrates falls flat because it assumes he is above the state — but the reality, and Socrates' own teaching, shows that this is not the case.

References

Mulry, D. (2007). The anarchist in the house: The politics of Conrad's "The Secret Agent." The Conradian, 32(1), 1–12.

Plato. (n.d.). Apology. Retrieved from http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html

Plato. (n.d.). Crito. Retrieved from http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/crito.html