Crito's Argument Analysis

The three main arguments that Crito said to convince Socrates to escape jail are Socrates’ responsible for his sons, the situation where his friends will help him escape, and the just and unjust. Crito argued that if Socrates’ decides to die, he’s just going to betray his sons. If Socrates’ won’t escape the jail, he will hurt Crito’s reputation.(Crito, 47c)

More importantly, Socrates’s relationship to the state is made clear during the dialogue with his friend Crito, when speaking as if Socrates is the state himself. When asking how important the state is, the law asks; “Is your…country to be honored more than…all your ancestors…that it counts for more among the gods and sensible men, that you must worship it…?” Rather than a statement, Socrates makes his point that the law must be upheld, even in his case of a death sentence. It is important to note that Socrates accepted his fate, even though he felt the accusations against him were false. Yet, as if speaking on behalf of the law, recognized that escaping would only turn those untruthful indictments into the truth, and as a destroyer of laws; “You will strengthen the conviction of the jury that they passed the right sentence on you.” By the definition of the word martyr, as one who dies for a cause, in this instance the laws of the state,

While a prisoner in Athens, Socrates, receives an early visit from his good friend Crito. Socrates is waiting to be executed when Crito offers to help him escape. He knows Socrates was unjustly sentenced to death for “corrupting the youth of Athens” and implores him to flee to another country and live in exile. While Crito makes a case on why he ought to flee before his execution, Socrates rebuts it with his decision based on moralities and principles. Especially, his main premise in which he believes he owes the government his obedience.

To Socrates laws only have meaning because the people give them meaning and only by following the laws do we see the actual value of them. According to Socrates the relationship of the people and the states are like that of a child and their parents. He claims that state raises the people by guiding them with laws giving them order and educates the people of what’s right and what’s wrong. Socrates does not believe in disobeying the law to set examples as you would not disobey your parents just to prove a point. Socrates is appreciative for what state has done for him and feels as if it is his duty and obligation to repay them or show gratitude to the state by following its laws.

A Tacit Agreement Socrates states, as written down by Plato in the Crito, that if one is to continually living in a country a tacit agreement is made to accept the laws of that country. Socrates is saying that if one decides that they are going to live and stay in a certain place they implied agreement is made that they must accept and follow the laws of the land. I find this argument to be false to a few flaws that are not presented in this argument. In this tacit agreement it seams as if Socrates wants to say no matter what the laws say you must follow them if you decide that that is your place of residence.

Socrates is a character who is seen as person who dies for his ideals. He sees himself as a public servant who has lived his life helping the people of the city with his practice of philosophy and by living his life within the boundaries of the laws and justices of society. Socrates sees this as a commitment by an invisible contract and he must commit himself to obey them even though these laws have wronged him. He is urged by his friend Crito to escape but Socrates feels that this would be wrong as it is going against state, country

In The Crito by Socrates, both Crito and Socrates present arguments, one that Socrates should escape prison, and one that he should not. Crito’s argument contains logic fallacies that undermine his argument and make it weak. Therefore, Socrates argument that he should remain in prison and face his death is valid and strong, and is better than Crito’s.

The first argument the laws make is that if Socrates were to escape, he would destroy the laws the city had set. They argue that if private individuals nullified the laws, there would be no point in having them, and the state would be in turmoil (50b). The argument continues with the laws stating that they had cared for Socrates, giving him education, nourishment, and even birth (50e). The laws relate their relationship with Socrates to that of a father and son and state that it would be wrong to retaliate against one’s own family. In addition, Socrates had chosen to live in the state and because of that, he chose to abide by its laws (51d).

     Also, Socrates refuses to allow the trite motive of retaliation dictate his behavior, since he believes that revenge is immoral. He goes on to ask Crito what good would a society be with laws if anyone could simply ignore them when the outcome does not suit them. Instead, he attests that logical argument and persuasion should be the defense of the accused. And, furthermore, since he is unable to convince those who ruled against him, he believes he has no alternative but to obey their sentence. Otherwise, although escape would be easy, it would only corrupt an already corrupt system further. In the end, Socrates manages to convince Crito that escape would not be right or just, and Crito agrees.

The case laid out by Crito argues that should Socrates choose to remain in jail and allow the court to execute him that the consequences of his death would cause such harm to his loved ones that to do so would constitute an immoral act. The first portion of his argument

Unlike Goldman, Socrates has sentiment for the law in which he was raised. Unclear in the Apology, Athens was under an oligarchy which did not raise Socrates, therefore he holds minimal respect for the law. He asserts disobedience stating that if the jury were to acquit him under one circumstance being that he ceases practicing philosophy he would rather obey the gods than the jury, which compliments Goldman’s view on government. On the other hand, in the Crito Socrates completely disregards his original stance from the Apology and uptakes super patriotism. Socrates’s super patriotism is composed of four arguments, three of which go against Goldman’s anarchism: benefactor, parent, and laws versus men. The argument of the parent illustrates the state as parental to the citizen which in this case is Socrates. The state demands obedience similar to the relationship between parent and child. Socrates was birthed from the state but not on equal footing with the state. The state loves and nurtures citizens as a parent would a child but once the citizen breaks the law, law must be put into action similarly to a parent scolding a child. The argument of the benefactor suggests that Socrates has been nurtured by the state in that he has received an education and proper protection, in return he must obey its laws. The state has shaped him and in turn he is indebted. The laws versus man argument exemplifies that Socrates

In Crito, Plato recounts the last days of Socrates, immediately before his execution was to take place in Athens. In the dialogue, Socrates’ pupil, Crito, proposes that Socrates escape from prison. Socrates considers this proposal, trying to decide whether escaping would be “just” and “morally justified.” Eventually, Socrates concludes that the act is considered “unjust” and “morally unjustified.” Socrates then decides to accept his fate and proceeded with his execution.

Crito acknowledged that Socrates will be missed so much with the decision given by the jury though Crito told Socrates that there is a possible other way to be relieved from such sentence. Though one can see the authenticity of Crito’s words, Socrates didn’t give in to such request given that Crito and his friends will pay so that Socrates may escape. Socrates posited that the laws of the city state is higher than the friendship that they have.

One of the most major components of any society is the law. Laws can be defined as “the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.” (dictionary.com) Socrates had been unjustly sentenced in the eyes of Crito and many of Socrates’ friends, however, Socrates held a very strong inclination to abide to the laws in any and every possible way, “In the first place did

In this paper, I will present and explain the argument Socrates gives for the conclusion that it is unjust for him to try to escape Athens against the will of the authorities. During The Crito Socrates is in jail awaiting his execution. Crito visits Socrates one or two days before his execution with the idea of helping him escape, and moving him to a place out of the Athenian authority’s jurisdiction. During this time with Crito; Socrates brings up an argument. I will be covering this argument in this paper, and it is that Socrates should not escape from jail to avoid his execution.