Plato’s’
“critos” is a dialogue between Socrates and his friend Crito. Their
conversation concentrates on the view of life and death, prison escape, acting
unjustly and just and reputation. The
entire conversation is based on whether Socrates should accept his imminent death
sentence and stay in jail until the death sentence is passed upon him. In a
nutshell, Socrates’ friend, Crito , propose to Socrates to escape from prison.
Socrates tries to consider this proposal, trying to figure-out if escaping act
could be “just” and “morally justified”. Eventually, Socrates considered the
act as “unjust” and “morally unjustified”. In other words, he decided to accept
the death sentence. The conversation indicates that, during the discussion
between Crito and Socrates, Crito tries to argue on what he thinks is good for Socrates
and his family but Socrates presents moral arguments on why he should remain in
jail and wait for his looming death penalty. Therefore, this essay nexus is
evaluating Crito and Socrates arguments
on injustice, retaliation and fair play
Crito painting
purports he is more concerned with the opinion of many people in his
argument. He is talking about death of
Socrates as being not only a single misfortune for him but also besmirch of his
reputation. For him, people will
conclude that, he did nothing to help his friend in the time of need, and if Socrates
accepts death sentence will ruin his reputation. Crito supports his arguments with the opinion
that he is willing to supports and ready to do anything to help his friend Socrates,
even by spending money to escape from prison.
He argues that the opinion of the majority will be that he values money
more than friendship. According to Crito, helping Socrates will be salient in
accomplishing his personal obligations. Therefore, in case Socrates declines to
follow the plan, it will be detrimental to his personal obligations since the
majority opinion will be on the premises of, Crito did not care enough about
his friend to help him escape or to go an extra mile to avert the looming
death. Thus, Crito argues that for the sake of his reputation, Socrates ought
to escape.
However, after
listening to his friend’s argument, Socrates dismisses it as being
inappropriate to a decision on the action taken being the right one. In a
nutshell, Socrates argues that, there is no point of relying on the majority’s
opinion but what matters is always listening to individuals with knowledge-how.
In the narrow sense, he purports that, instead
of fusing on the majority’s opinion but cares for what justice is and what injustice
is. Furthermore, he criticizes his
friend Crito for only thinking on ego-centric oriented without factoring in
what is just, noble and good. He underscore, it is salient for him to live life
that adheres to the rules and principles governing the society. According to Socrates, the only opinion that
truly matters is the one that an individual knows. The truth should form the
basis of the decisions about the human action; hence an appropriate approach
should involve sort of carefully dealing with what is good and just.
Furthermore, Socrates is only willing to consider an opinion that would be
casted on the state. In other words, his action will be influenced by whether
it adheres to the state rules and regulation to avoid going against the state. By standing with the law, is upholding the
foundation of justice in the entire city. Accepting ant plans to mend the laws
will set a bad precedence where the order and judgment of the courts will mean
nothing. Therefore, according to Socrates, he provides a compelling reason why
he should not heed to the Crito’s plan of escaping from the prison. He argued
that, if he heed to the crito’s suggestion and escape from prison, it will not
be justifiable or noble. Notably, his friends and family will tend to be much happier
if he escapes, his action will be against the justice or moral code of the
state in which it is expected of him to adhere and obey.
Crito does not
believe that Socrates is doing what is supposed to be the right thing. He went
further and tries to convince Socrates to let him break him out of the person
by bringing the family argument. He argues that by Socrates going away is an
act of betrayal to his sons. His escape should be enough to help his children
to become better people. The argument seems to overwhelm Socrates who wants his
children to be well brought up as well educated. In the narrow sense, Crito’s
argues that, by Socrates refusing to escape from prison, he will have little
impacts in their fate. They may end up having the fate same as the one usually
of orphans. Furthermore, since Socrates has children, he has no option but only
share with them to the end the hard work of parenting and education. Therefore,
Critos believes that, what Socrates is doing is the wrong thing. According to
him, the Socrates’s enemies are the one who have decide his fate which is death.
On the other hand, Socrates needs to retaliate by not deciding his fate in the
way that destroys him. The retaliation
will be proving his enemies wrong and not allowing his enemies to take his life
will be working with his enemies to execute plans that do not favor him.
In his argument,
Socrates thinks there are better ways of honoring him after his demise. From
his arguments it appears Socrates values individualism than the family
structure. He holds the opinion that his family has a life to live and they
should continue working to support them even after his death. Socrates agrees
that your enemy can put a person in prison and give him the harsh sentence but
the most important aspect for the human beings is not to live but to conduct them
in the righteous way. In the other words, retaliation is counter-productive
especially in the realm of moral justice. He further implies that, if the situation requires
a sacrifice, it worth’s to give away something to ensure that there is a better
life for the society in general even if it calls for an individual to lose in
the big way. Therefore, it is the role of every person to support the law to
ensure there is order within the structure of the society. Finally, he
disapproves Crito’s idea of escaping argues it will act as the breeding ground for
destroying the law of Athens.
The conversation in prison between Socrates and Crito
forms a fertile ground on discussion on the obedience of the human law or being
against it. Their speeches touch on the salient issues in the society such as
life and death, opinion of the majority, reputation and family. However, the
most salient issue is the obedience to the law of the land and why it is
important in ensuring order in the society. In a nutshell, regarding the
situation, human beings are not encouraged to take decisions that contradict the
law. However, laws that infringe the rights of its people should be rejected by
the people. Thus, Socrates should not analyzed his decisions only but also the
decision of the authorities
