Crito, a friend and follower of Socrates, arrives in his prison cell one day and tries to convince Socrates into escaping. Socrates counters Crito by giving a few arguments as to why he should not escape, yet his arguments could also be disputed in some ways which brings up the question of Socrates intents. For example, his first argument is that he should not escape as it would mean harming someone and you should never harm even if you are harmed first. This could be contradicted with an act of self-defense; in this case you are not intently harming yet trying to prevent harm from yourself. Also, how exactly would they be physically harming people by escaping? On the other hand, his second argument claims that people should never disobey their parent or teacher which is compared to the state. In this case, it is not always true that a person should not disobey their parent or teacher because they might not always be ordering the right thing. Murder for example is wrong and if a parent of teacher orders you to commit murder this does not mean it’s the right thing to do. Lastly, Socrates says we should never break an agreement which could be arguable depending on the circumstances. Depending on what the agreement is or if for say the other party violates the agreement first then you should break it. Overall, it did seem that Socrates was choosing the easy way out by just accepting his fate.
