An Existential Analysis of Ethics in Plato’s Crito

In Plato’s Crito, involving Socrates and a character named Crito; Socrates discusses the question of whether or not he should escape the punishment set down by the Athenian courts. “If it is seen to be right, we will try to do so; if it is not, we will abandon the idea.” (Crito, 48c). Of primary importance to Socrates is whether or not escaping from jail would be just or unjust. He addresses this in the form of two major arguments against escape, one being that escape would violate an agreement with the city, and the other being that escape would be destroying the city. Although Socrates was able to convince Crito that escape would be wrong, through his inescapable logic, the great Socrates fails to factor in the fundamental drive to exist, the basic human desire to continue living.

Socrates’ first argument against escape considers the just agreement made between the city and Socrates. Socrates adopts the voice of “the laws” in his argument. “The laws,” in Socrates’ view are not strictly authoritarian because whoever doesn’t agree with the laws has free will to leave the city and join another society, and furthermore “the laws,” even offer the opportunity “either to persuade us or to do what we say.” (Crito, 52a), Socrates attempts to persuade the courts in Apology but fails to do so. Therefore, the only other logical course of action is to obey the judgment of the Athenian court system.

If the Athenian court system is anything like our modern court system, then it must make mistakes. In the case of Socrates, such a mistake will cost an innocent man his life. In light of this, Socrates is still not swayed, because he believes that turning one’s back on the city that has provided for him and his family would be an injustice. Socrates argues that the citizens have an obligation to the city, to uphold its laws and to obey its judgments. By his living in the city, Socrates has agreed to uphold the laws that govern it.

To further explain his view, he uses the analogy that a child is to the parent as the citizen is to the city. (Crito, 50–52). In the analogy, the city of Athens is like a parent to Socrates, “did we not…bring you to birth.” (Crito, 50d). Socrates argues that it would be wrong for a child to turn on the parent who gave birth, nurtured his growth and provided him with protection and education. “The laws,” in Socrates’ argument, voice that a father and son are not on the same authority, and that a son has no right over the father. Similarly, the citizen has no right over the city’s law. By his very existence, Socrates supposedly agreed to uphold the laws, and at any time after his birth, he was free to leave. The only crutch to this argument is that Socrates must believe that the city is responsible for his very existence.

If Socrates believed that his family or even his worth were responsible for his success, then “the laws” would not have been implicitly agreed to. There is no evidence in Crito that Socrates signed any document stating that he was under any agreement with the city and its laws. Socrates also makes a generalization in that by agreeing to live in the city and enjoy its benefits, that also equates to agreeing to accept its judgments, even if they are unjust and result in his death. Socrates does, however, believe that his is bound by an agreement to the city, and that escape would be violating that agreement. Socrates believes that the agreement is fair and just. Therefore, it must be kept. (Crito, 49e). This means that Socrates must not escape.

One reason is not enough, and Socrates gives Crito a second reason he should not escape his punishment. He reasons that he must not do an injustice himself, even in return for an injustice done to him. He argues that if he were to escape, he would be destroying the city. The question at the heart of this reasoning is “are we injuring people we should least injure?” (Crito, 50a). By escaping Socrates argues that he would be doing an injustice, whereas it would be better to be the victim of an injustice than act unjustly. (Crito, 49b). Socrates once again adopts the voice of “the laws” (Crito, 50) and says that by his escaping would he not be destroying the city? Would he not be nullifying the power of the laws? The power of the laws is at the heart of this argument, of accepting punishment. By escaping punishment, Socrates would be making an example that if seen in the wrong light, can truly corrupt the youth. He would be endorsing anarchy. The destruction of the city would not come in the form of crumbling walls, but crumbling control of the city over its citizens. In Socrates’ view this would be the result of his escape, and therefore and injustice, an act of violence to the city and its people.

Is Socrates making this argument more than what it is? It can be safely assumed that in the history of Athenian law, at least, one individual has escaped the court’s judgment. The city did not cease to function because of it. Athenians still carried out their lives in much the same manner as they did before. Socrates’ escape would undoubtedly have little more effect on society. The only possible way Socrates’ escape would injure the people he should least want to injure is if he killed someone in the process. He would then be inflicting direct, bodily harm on the city. Socrates does not see things this way. By escaping from his punishment and nullifying the city’s laws, Socrates argues that he would be acting violently towards the city, and by acting violently towards the city, he is acting unjustly and impiously. (Crito, 51c). Socrates argues that one must never act unjustly even in returning an injustice for one that has been dealt to him. (Crito, 49b).

His loyalty to Athens, the city that has turned its back on him, is what sealed his death. Socrates’ arguments were all well presented and were based in logic, even in the face of his impending demise. Their effect and overall success are an entirely different thing. He is successful at every turn at convincing his associate Crito that escape from jail and consequently his death sentence would be wrong and unjust. He has argued that to do unjust acts is the same as doing these unjust acts to oneself. It is better to be the aggressors’ victim than the aggressor himself. He has argued that to escape from jail would both be destructive to the city which spawned his growth, and it would be violating an agreement that Socrates made with the city to obey its judgments.

However, Socrates’ logic has consumed him. It assumes that by residing in a city, the citizens agree to follow the laws found in that city. Its judgment is, therefore, absolute. When a life hangs in the balance, one must seriously examine the nature of the agreement. Can any man agree to die as a result of a decision reached in an unjust fashion? Would not the agreement itself lack meaning if its justification lies in falsehood? Certainly, Socrates’ argument provides food for thought. However, dead men do no thinking. What good would logic avail Socrates in the grave?