Socrates and Crito arguments

Crito advances his reasons about why Socrates must leave Athens before he is executed in an attempt to persuade him to do so. However, Socrates takes a philosophical stance in opposing Crito's ideas. Both men have rational, well-supported points, but I believe Socrates' stance is more enlightened and better for the following reasons.

Crito has three well-thought-out points about why Socrates should be released from prison. Two of the first are very weak, but the third is well thought out and almost persuasive. Reason being unlike the first two arguments mainly centered on opinions of the majority, others who are not involved in the problem and remorse. The third argument considers Socrates children’s wellbeing if Socrates dies.

Crito’s first argument is that Socrates death will be a great loss to him as he is a non-replaceable kind of a friend to him. Claiming he might not be able to handle the such loss. Crito being a rich man seems to have no known noble, moral and high integrity kinds of friends like Socrates who is not willing to live without. But if Socrates was to follow through with Crito’s escape plan he will have done an illegal deed, gone against the rule losing his unique noble high integrity man position and become a rebel. Making him no longer a special truth full man in the eyes of Crito. He might as well have just have become like all other Crito’s friends that day.

Crito’s second argument is more of a speculation as to the reasons for Socrates reluctance for escape. Implying that Socrates might be fearing for his friends wellbeing in that if he escapes his friend might get into trouble for this. At this moment Crito gives Socrates guarantees to fear not as his fears are not justified. Diminishing the intensity of the risk by explaining to Socrates that it’s a risks his friends are fully aware of the dangers but are still willing to undertake even face worse for him if need be also that any informant or the guards can be easily paid off reducing the risk. So if the primary reason for Socrates refusal to escape were this, then information provided by Crito on the possibility of paying people off would have been very important in strengthening his argument, but it does not seem that this is Socrates main reason not to escape. Socrates seems to be more deeply concerned with morals aspect point of view. Trying level best not to harm the soul. So even if it’s possible to pay off people, it’s still doesn’t solve its morality question which he still highly considers.

Crito’s other argument is top play the children’s card. He engages Socrates on thinking about the idea of who is going to take care of his children after he executed. His children need taking care of and get schooled, and all this is their father’s responsibility, but Socrates won’t be there to play his duty if he dies. He claims good men make sure their children are well taken care off. So since Socrates has professed to lead a good life, he should do right by his kids. Crito argues that escaping is the courageous thing to do compared to remaining in jail which is easy. With consideration of the children dynamics escaping according to Socrates is the brave, good thing to do.

Crito’s concern to me shows a substantial argument compared to all his other arguments concerned with negative people’s opinion or remorse. The fate of the children concerns him. Crito is concerned that Socrates death will lead to his children not being able to be well taken care of. Socrates considers this assumption erroneous. Claiming Socrates is ignoring the fact that his children will most probably be well taken care of by his friends who are capable and will to do just that. He claims if he escapes with his children away to Thessaly making the foreigners will not be in their best interest. Supposing that even if he escaped his children would most probably remain with his friend who he will expect to take care of them, so there is no difference here whether he dies or escapes. The outcome to is it will remain the same.

Considering Socrates arguments like why should the opinions of the majority of people matter in disregard of a harmful action and profession opinion. The city of Athens harmful consequences it will face if its laws are not followed but disregarded by escaping from jail. And the inevitable harm brought upon the soul by negative actions. Need a lot of considerations.

In Socrates arguments against consideration of the majority opinion over that which is just but not popular with most people, response to Crito. Socrates argued that Crito should consider the fact that most will think low of him if he does not assist Socrates to his escape. Socrates should also think of how the society will view his decision on the merit that it will live his children without guardians. But Socrates counter argument is that the majority opinion is not more valuable compared to that of an individual expert. An expert in that he who understands the complexity of the situation in full awareness of the complications and consequences arising from each decision made. Giving an example of some who is training, does not consider general public opinion but that of his trainer. Arguing that public advice might even harm the trainer with false, misleading opinions. In this analogy, Socrates decides on how to act in the right way. Majority opinions compared to those of experts, Socrates argues that they could harm the soul. Actions that are wrong mutilate the soul and right actions makes the soul benefit. (Crito, 47a – 48a)

The argument for living well

To Socrates living is not so important but of more importance is living a noble good life. As a majority do indeed have the legal right to place people in death for this aspect on does Socrates concede about majority role? But for him, if following the opinion of the majority means sacrificing of a good deed that makes life better. Then following it is not right.

Living is not important what’s important is to live properly seems to be Socrates most important principle. With this in mind, he considers if it is quite moral to pay out guards to escape. He weighs out this issue about its equivalent effect to the city, Athens. Implying that Athens established laws would be undermined by his escape. A city where by individual public citizens nullify legal rules and judgements made by the city may result in the public disregarding their established rules, and this could be a remedy for chaos and cities final demise.

In addition to this probable city harm by his escape, Socrates argued the harming of his soul by such illegal actions as escape. Assuming that through harm of the city his soul will also be harmed as an effect. If one is the sole cause of harm to others, its opposite reaction is that he is also harming his soul. His allegiance to the city of Athens is long, and he will be breaking his contract with the city if he escapes. He has been the cities rule of law follower for about seventy years, followed them and brought his children under them and up till then, he had not felt the need to advocate for the changing the laws.

For an analysis of Socrates argument, his opinions need to be evaluated, and their premises set get his way of thought.

His first argument on well living.

Premises here include living life with a ruined, damaged soul is not worth it and practicing unjust actions are the causes for soul ruining. Concluding at this moment that a just moral life is far more important than just being alive.

His second argument towards what Athens will face as a consequence of his actions.

In this one Premises include the fact that rule of law will most likely harm the legal life of Athens destroying the city in turn. Also destroying Athens will also inevitably lead to the destruction of the people its self of Athens. Another one is that to harm people unjustly is also an indirect way of harming the soul. And its preferable to being executed than to live with a soul that is damaged. Conclusion at this moment is that Socrates should remain captive and face the death penalty as consequence.

Third argument of Agreement.

Here premises being. If Socrates eventually escapes prison, he will be braking his contract with the city. Which to bridge the agreement will be an action that is unjust. Souls are considered harmed by actions that are unjust. Its favorable to Socrates to end up being executed that to live with a soul that is ruined. Concluding therefore that he should remain in jail and face the consequences, inevitably the death penalty.

Conclusion

Crito’s seems to be in position of only very narrow arguments. He’s most strong argument where he perceives the children’s possible harsh future is easily shut down by Socrates. I consider Socrates being right to remain in jail mainly on his main argument evoking morals, concerned with the kind of life he will live after braking the laws. And even if this argument was to brake down his other argument on bridging his agreement with the city is still compelling enough to justify he actions in remaining jailed.

References

Greenberg, N. A. (1965). Socrates' choice in the Crito. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 70, 45-82.