The Non-Retaliation Argument In Plato's Crito

This paper is an analysis on the non-retaliation argument of the global argument that takes place in Plato’s dialogue Crito. Prior to Crito, Socrates has been arrested for corrupting the youth of Athens and showing impiety against the Gods. The dialogue opens with Socrates waiting to be executed once a ship, out on a holy mission from Delos, returns to Athens. Crito, whom the dialogue is named after, is a friend of Socrates who has come to convince Socrates to run away from the execution by bribing the guard, an act considered common practice at the time. At this time, we are presented with the global argument for the entire dialogue: Should Socrates stay, and face execution by drinking hemlock, or should Socrates leave with the help of his friends and Crito? According to the pervious argument by moral expertise, Socrates states that the consequences of fleeing would be that he would harm his soul if he was to flee the execution. If he was to flee, he would not be listening to the few and would harm someone else, and thus his soul, by not listening to those who should hold wisdom. If Socrates was to not listen to them, he would also be violating his …show more content…
This argument states Socrates should be bound by the laws and rules of the state due to his agreement to stay within the state. If Socrates had a problem with the rules and laws, then he could have left. Him staying gives implied consent to the social contract to obey the laws within the state. Socrates also mentions that he must be able to persuade the state, or he must obey the state. He was unable to persuade the state so, according to logic, all that is left is to obey the state. If he didn’t persuade the state and did not obey the state then he would become even worse than a slave in the master servant analogy. He would be considered an animal for willfully disobeying the state and thus damn his soul and violate the ethical super