Socratic Morality: Crito
Introduction
The Crito is generally considered one of Plato's earlier dialogues. In
this, Socrates states the doctrines to his conception of the ethical life. He
will give up his life rather than compromise his ethics. If his peers would
all agree that life is not worth living with a badly deformed body then
they should also agree that life is even less worth living with the
deformation of something more important than the body which is
identified as the soul in other dialogues. And because acting wrongly
causes serious injury to the soul, so Socrates believes that we must strive
to avoid wrongdoing at all costs.
Background
In 399, Socrates was brought before a jury of around 500 Athenians on
charges of not recognizing the gods recognized by the state, of inventing
new deities, and of corrupting the youth of Athens. The most likely
reason for this trial is Socrates' close association with a number of men
who had fallen out of political favour in Athens, but because an amnesty
had been declared for political offenders, other charges had to be brought
against him. Socrates was found guilty by a narrow margin and then
sentenced to death.
Crito, a wealthy Athenian friend of Socrates, has bribed the jailers and
prepared means for Socrates to escape from Athens, but Socrates refuses
on the grounds that to do so would be to damage the laws wrongfully, and
this violates his bedrock principle that one must never do wrong, even in
return for a wrong. When Crito appeals to popular opinion on the matter,
Socrates replies that the only authority he would accept on the matter
would be that of someone who is expert on the matter at hand, which is
how doing right and doing wrong affect the most important part of a
person. This is analogous to how health and disease affect the body.
Socrates is looking for an expert who is analogous to a doctor, whose
specialty is moral health and corruption. However, in the absence of such
an expert, he must make up his own mind.
On a more ethical level, Crito presents two more pressing arguments:
first, if Socrates stayed in prison, he would be aiding his enemies in
wronging him unjustly, and would thus be acting unjustly himself and
second, that he would be abandoning his sons and leaving them without a
father.
Socratic’s position in the Socratic Morality: Crito
Socrates says that one should not worry about public opinion, but only
listen to wise and expert advice. For him, Crito should not worry about
how his, Socrates', or others' reputations, that may fare in the general
esteem but they should only concern themselves with behaving well.
The only question at hand is whether or not it would be just for Socrates
to attempt an escape. If it is just, he will go with Crito and if it is unjust,
he must remain in prison and face death.
At this point, Socrates introduces the voice of the Laws of Athens, which
speaks to him and explain why it would be unjust for him to leave his
cell. Since the Laws exist as one entity, to break one would be to break
them all, and in doing so, Socrates would cause them great harm. The
citizen is bound to the Laws like a child is bound to a parent, and so to go
against the Laws would be like striking a parent. Rather than simply
break the Laws and escape, Socrates should try to persuade the Laws to
let him go. These Laws present the citizen's duty to them in the form of a
kind of social contract. By choosing to live in Athens, a citizen is
implicitly endorsing the Laws, and is willing to abide by them. Socrates,
more than most, should be in accord with this contract, as he has lived a
happy seventy years fully content with the Athenian way of life.
If Socrates were to break from prison now, having so consistently
validated the social contract, he would be making himself an outlaw who
would not be welcome in any other civilized state for the rest of his life.
And when he dies, he will be harshly judged in the underworld for
behaving unjustly toward his city's laws. Thus, Socrates convinces Crito
that it would be better not to attempt an escape.
His first conclusion is that nothing matters other than whether their
actions would be just or unjust, right or wrong. Socrates then goes on to
argue that they would do wrong if they followed Crito’s plan. His
argument uses his old method of accepting the reasoning (logos), that
seems best to him as he reasons about it. The bedrock principle has
guided his life so far, and it would be absurd to give it up now merely
because his circumstances have changed.
His second conclusion is that they would do wrong if they followed
Crito’s plan. The argument leads to a question, of which Crito cannot
give answer, i.e. if one should abide by one’s agreements, provided that
they are just then would I be abiding by my agreement if I escaped
without persuading the city?
Because Crito cannot answer, Socrates personifies the laws and imagines
their response, on behalf of his obligation to them. The argument, which
the laws give, is elaborate, and appeals mainly to two points: an
agreement that allege Socrates made, to obey them by choosing to live in
Athens, and the benefits which they claim, Socrates has received from
them and so that places Socrates under a stronger obligation to the laws
than he has to his parents. Neither Crito nor Socrates can reply to the
arguments given by the laws, and conclusion of the laws is allowed to
stand.
Criticism
Briefly, we can say that the Crito is a confusing and somewhat muddled
dialogue. The difficulty Plato faced in composing the dialogue was to
somehow justify Socrates' decision to stay in prison rather than try to
escape after his wrongful condemnation. And so, Plato had to draw out a
distinction between the just Laws, which Socrates must obey by staying
in prison, and the unjust behaviour of Socrates' accusers, who sentenced
him to death.
It does seem that there is some inconsistency here. Plato is committed to
the claim that Socrates' accusers are acting unjustly, but that the Laws are
just. Socrates is thus wrongfully imprisoned and will be wrongfully
executed, but he cannot counteract these wrong judgments because they
are secured by the Laws. But if the Laws are just, how is it that they
permit such injustice? And if the Laws are unjust, what compulsion does
Socrates have to abide by them?
The problem, of course, is that Socrates' accusers have unjustly sentenced
him by using the Laws. By giving the Laws their own voice, Plato hopes
to distinguish them as a separate entity, making them something human
toward which Socrates might be able to act unjustly. However, it is
highly debatable how far one can truly separate the laws of a state from
the people who apply them. In this instance, we have the people of the
state condemning Socrates and the Laws of the state following suit and
persuading Socrates that he must face death in order to avoid breaking
them. But if both the people and the Laws have ruled that Socrates must
be executed, either the people are siding with the Laws or the Laws are
siding with the people. And regardless of which of these is the case, it
seems odd to assert that the Laws are just and must be respected and that
the people are unjust and should not be respected.
One of Crito's strongest arguments in favor of escape comes, where Crito
suggests that Socrates would be abetting the wrong-doing of his enemies
in following through with their wishes. Socrates' reply to this argument is
that he would in fact be harming the Laws, which are just. If the Laws are
just and the people are unjust, but both are willing the same thing, then it
seems Socrates is in a quandary. If Socrates stays in prison, he will be
siding with his unjust accusers, and if he escapes he will be acting against
the just Laws. Ultimately, it seems that it is better to accord oneself with
the Laws than to side against the people.
The conclusion of these personified laws, that one must obey the city in
all things, seems to conflict with a memorable text in the Apology, as
Grote first pointed out that there ‘Socrates promises to disobey the court
if it should let him off on the condition that he give up his mission in
Athens’.
Conclusion
As a concluding remark, we can say that, the major difficulty in placing
the Crito is that it lacks the standard form of cross-examination that leads
to aporia. Though Socrates questions Crito regarding justice but Crito
never makes any effort to present himself as an expert, nor does Socrates
leave him in a state of bewilderment.
In this dialogue, Crito's argument seems to rest more heavily on the
notion that justice consists in helping one's friends and hurting one's
enemies, suggesting that it would be wrong to help one's enemies.
Socrates seems to want to argue against that, suggesting that retaliation of
any kind is wrong. For him, justice consists in obeying the Laws as they
have been set down. So they do seem to have differing moral positions,
and they do seem irreconcilable to the extent that both see the other's
position as unjust. Crito does seem increasingly to agree with Socrates as
Socrates clarifies his argument, but Socrates never directly addresses
Crito's question of whether it would be unjust to help his enemies. Instead
of refuting Crito, he simply side-steps him, giving priority to the question
of whether or not one has a right to break the Laws.
Socrates is not trying to question Crito's knowledge so much as he is
trying to convince Crito that he is following the right course. This sense
of certainty and positive knowledge in Socrates is more characteristic of
Plato's mature work.
