Argument In The Crito

In the Crito, Socrates attempts to show himself not only as a philosopher, but as a good citizen of Athens. A citizen who is willing to give up his life in order to obey the law – even in the face of an unjust verdict. His friend Crito visits him in prison, and attempts to persuade Socrates to escape his cell and continue his life – and his life’s work – in another city. True to form, Socrates cannot act without reasoning out Crito’s plan; without attempting to decipher whether it will be just or unjust for him to comply with his friend’s wishes.
Crito has seemingly covered all bases, and assures Socrates that they will be undetected during their getaway. He has bribed the guards as well as any potential witnesses. He also promises that Socrates …show more content…
Does he forget that he knows nothing, and therefore stops searching for the truth? He does not see that it is possible for two things to be true while opposing each other. He has many rebuttals to Crito’s arguments, the most prominent of which is: one must not do unjust things, for doing wrong corrupts the soul and makes life not worth living. He goes to great lengths to show that it would be wrong, or unjust, for him to leave. However, in resting with this answer he fails to see that it is even more unjust to stay. And in staying he is choosing the most wrong, or the greater evil. According to Socrates’ teachings, knowledge is associated with goodness, and ignorance with evil. He also states that one cannot knowingly harm oneself or act in ignorance. He has lived by this principle his whole life, and shared it publicly with others. He has declared that his calling has been to bring people to wisdom by illuminating their ignorance. By this standard alone, Socrates has an obligation to save himself. This is a spoken agreement with himself, and supersedes the unspoken agreement he has with Athens. Not only is choosing execution a betrayal of this verbal agreement, but accepting the unjust verdict in the first place was doing himself a wrong. In acting this way, he is acting in ignorance – and therefore evil. Moreover, by accepting an unjust verdict and choosing not to escape, he is allowing the majority to commit a wrong against him – and therefore themselves. In class, we discussed the example of returning a borrowed gun to its owner while the owner is in a rage. The borrower is obligated to return the gun to its rightful owner. However, they are morally obligated to only return the gun when the owner has calmed down. Otherwise, they are assisting in a wrong, and can be held responsible for that wrong. Both options could be seen as just, while one option is clearly