Plato’s Crito begins with Socrates peacefully awaiting his impending death, only to be disrupted by his concerned close friend, Crito, who has come to convince Socrates to escape in a last attempt to keep his companion alive. By the time Crito arrives, however, Socrates seems to have made his decision to remain in prison and accept his death sentence, but he still permits Crito to debate with him; Socrates wishes for his friend to understand that he must abide by the Laws and accept his death sentence before he is no longer able to explain to his friend that his death is necessary (48e). Crito presents a series of four arguments in an attempt to reason with Socrates, but Socrates refutes each of Crito’s justifications for escaping by revealing his beliefs on the opinions of the majority, referencing past discussions with Crito, and, ultimately, debating whether or not it would be just to escape in order to lead Crito to accept the conclusion that Socrates must remain in prison and submit to his fate.
Crito begins by explaining that Socrates will cause upset among his friends by making them lose Socrates’ friendship if he refuses to escape (44b). This argument seems to be more of a weak plea to Socrates’ emotions, as although it would be unfortunate for Crito and his friends to lose Socrates, Socrates admits early in Crito that he is of old age, and that his death would likely occur soon (43a). Socrates’ death sentence is only hastening the inevitable–Socrates’ friends would eventually have to learn to live without him, and their unwillingness to let go is not the fault of Socrates. But Crito’s attempt to guilt Socrates into escaping is not completely feeble, as Crito implies that the loss of Socrates’ friendship would be doing a great harm to his friends, which would be immoral (49b).
Crito’s second argument amplifies the first, as he states that not only will Socrates’ friends be losing him, but the public will also hold them in contempt if Socrates refuses to escape; his friends have the means to help him escape, and it will appear as though they are too greedy to give their money in exchange for the life of a friend (44c). Crito’s fear for his reputation among the majority is a valid worry, for it is the majority that has the power to sentence one to death, and they utilized this power to sentence Socrates to death (44d). From Crito’s point of view, as one who clearly holds Socrates in high esteem as we can see later in the Crito by the high regard in which he holds Socrates’ arguments and his seeming willingness to learn from Socrates’ wisdom, if the public could put someone as wise as Socrates to death, they would not hesitate to kill Crito based on their aversion. This argument is justified, but it is superficial: while his friend faces death, Crito is worried for his reputation, which seems a bit trivial given the impending loss of a friend. In convincing Socrates to escape, the argument is adequate solely in the sense that should Crito’s bad reputation lead him to a death sentence as well, Socrates would be causing the death of a friend. In this way, Socrates would be acting wrongfully, as he would knowingly be doing harm to a friend.
In Crito’s third argument, he discusses his disdain for Socrates’ enemies, and explains that by dying, Socrates is allowing his enemies to defeat him (45c). Crito is essentially stating that in this way, Socrates is wronging himself and displaying weakness by neglecting to save himself. Even after death, Socrates would appear dishonorable to the majority. Socrates would unethically be doing harm to himself when it is within his abilities to prevent this unjust harm.
Crito then addresses Socrates’ familial duties; he states that Socrates would be wronging his children by refusing to escape his death sentence (45c). Referring to Socrates’ fatherly obligations is his most convincing argument for Socrates’ escape, as children are reliant on a parent for their education and upbringing, as Crito claims, and that by deserting them, he would be denying them of the opportunities they would receive if Socrates remained alive (45d). Socrates’ children would be harmed the most by his death, as they are not yet independent and can only become so with Socrates’ guidance. By neglecting his children, Socrates is denying them of a chance to succeed in life and earn the respect of the public. These children would be scorned more greatly than typical orphans by inheriting the reputation of their father.
Socrates provides compelling counterarguments for each of Crito’s arguments in order to lead Crito to reach Socrates’ conclusion that he must remain in prison. Escaping prison would be acting in direct opposition to the Laws, and by knowingly harming the Laws, Socrates would be deemed corrupt. Previously, Socrates states in the Apology that “bad people do something bad to whoever’s closest to them at the given moment” (25b), and, in this way, Socrates would be corrupting those around him, including his friends and children, merely by being corrupt. Of course, Socrates would not purposefully corrupt his loved ones by palpably coercing them to perform corrupt actions; since he serves as an example to his friends and family, by viewing his sin, they, too, would be inclined to act corruptly. If the person who they would view as the epitome of wisdom would escape prison, they would have no reason to hesitate in acting corruptly based on the precedent. In this way, Socrates forces Crito to agree that he would be doing more harm to his friends and children than good by escaping, as Socrates does no good to them alive if he corrupts them. Additionally, if he were to escape, he would ironically become guilty of one of the Athenian’s original charges of corrupting the youth, which would justify their sentencing.
Socrates goes on to explain to Crito that the opinion of the majority should not be given much credit. He provides a comparison of the part of the mind to the body’s physical state, explaining that if one is concerned about the state of his body, he would listen to the opinion of a doctor, who is informed on the subject, rather than the opinion of the public (47a). In the same way, Socrates explains, one should listen to the opinions of those who are wise when concerned with matters of wisdom, rather than the opinion of the majority. Holding the opinions of the majority above the opinions of an expert would cause harm to the part of humans which is affected by wisdom, the soul, which Socrates describes in the Phaedo (65b), and if Socrates were to escape according to the opinion on the majority, he would cause damage to his soul, which is far worse than damage to the body, as the body is not immortal, but the soul is (64b). Due to the same reasoning, Crito should not be concerned by the opinions of the majority, as those whose opinions he should truly value will see Crito and his friends’ situation for what it really is and understand that they have acted justly.
Crito is, however, justified in fearing the opinions of the majority, as the beliefs of the majority have lead to Socrates’ death sentence. Socrates points out, however, that the majority does not have the knowledge to do great amounts of evil, just as they do not have the knowledge to do great amounts of good (44d). The great amount of evil Socrates is referring to is not death, but rather he is discussing corruption to the deeper part of humans–the soul. While the majority does have the power to execute, Crito should not fear them, as death is not nearly as dreadful as the worse evil: the corruption of the soul. If Socrates chooses to escape prison, his soul would become corrupted, which is a worse possible outcome than death, as harm to the body is fleeting but harm to the soul is eternal by nature of its immortality. To further negate Crito’s fear, Socrates reminds Crito that they have agreed in the past that “the most important thing isn’t living, but living well” (48b).
Socrates references another past discussion between he and Crito, in which they agreed that it is never right to do injustice (49a), and he leads Crito to the conclusion that injustice is always wrong, even when it it retaliation against one who has committed an injustice (49b). This invalidates Crito’s third argument, which states that Socrates should escape in order to deny his enemies of the pleasure of defeating him. However, because Crito has already agreed to the fact that committing an injustice is always wrong, he must accept Socrates’ refusal to escape. By not escaping, Socrates may be harming himself by causing a bad reputation among the majority, but by escaping, he would be causing his soul to be corrupt, which is the worse of the two evils.
I find myself convinced by Socrates’ argument discussing the reasoning of why Crito should not listen to the majority’s opinion, as his analogy concerning the doctor is untroublesome. The fear of the majority’s beliefs is a major factor in Crito’s last three arguments, and because the analogy adequately refutes these facets of his arguments, I agree that Socrates should remain in prison. However, I was at first a bit troubled by two main points in his counterarguments: the corruption of his friends and the corruption of the soul. Regarding Socrates’ explanation in which he contests that he would corrupt his friends by escaping prison, I was unsure if Socrates was being too critical of his friends, placing too much significance on the idea that his friends would surely follow his example. Why does Socrates assume that his friends would surely act based on his actions? Based on Socrates’ arguments, if he did choose to escape, it seems as though he would have a deep sense of remorse, and if his friends saw this sense of remorse, they may not want to put themselves in a position where they would feel the same self-hatred; could Socrates’ escape not corrupt them, but rather have the opposite effect? Upon further examination, I have determined that Socrates truly would corrupt his friends by providing a corrupt example; when faced with something as daunting as death, his friends, many of which may not be philosophers, who should not fear death (65a), would seek an excuse to act upon an instinct for self preservation, and Socrates’ escaping from prison would provide that excuse.
Regarding Socrates’ concern about his soul being corrupt if he were to escape, I understand that this is not desirable, but I was at first unconvinced that the corruption of the soul is worse than death. Because an unjust deed can have such an undesirable effect on the soul, it seemed to me as though a just deed should have the opposite effect on the soul, in a way cancelling out the harm done by the unjust deed. I was concerned with why Socrates could not mend his soul by acting justly and work to heal his corrupt soul, but Socrates highlights in the Phaedo that the soul is opposite of the body in form–the soul is immortal while the body is able to die (72b). When a body is harmed, it is able to heal, but the body is perishable; because the soul’s form is opposite of the body, it would be understandable that when the soul is harmed, it is unable to heal, which is worsened by the fact that the soul is imperishable. Because this mark of corruption to the soul would be imperishable, this would be a worse fate than death. Therefore, after analyzing and attempting to refute Socrates’ arguments, I find myself convinced by his explanations and am of the opinion that he should remain in prison. Paste your essay in here…