Essay on Crito
Crito in Plato’s dialogue tries to persuade Socrates to escape from prison, where the philosopher is awaiting his punishment. In this essay we will analyse Crito’s arguments and Socrates’ counterarguments.
Crito’s arguments are mostly based on a basic premise that the opinion of the many must be taken into account by the individual. Hence, the predominance of such arguments in Crito’s speech. He states, for example, that if Socrates won’t escape, people will believe that he and other friends of Socrates were able to help, but that they did not care to or valued money more than the life of their friend. Also, later on in his speech, Crito points out that “I am ashamed not only of you, but of us who are your friends, when I reflect that this entire business of yours will be attributed to our want of courage” (Jowett, 2009). Apart from these “social” reasons, Crito states some personal reasons. If Socrates is executed, he will lose a dear friend. He assures Socrates in their full support and confirms his right to manage their wealth in any way, which could facilitate philosopher’s escape. On the other hand, Crito reminds him of his enemies, who would be pleased to learn about Socrates’ demise; he reminds the philosopher about his children, who would lose a father and would be destined to live in hardship.
Socrates, in contrast, holds to the belief that the opinion of many is not important. A man, an individual, must heed the opinion of those who have understanding of the matter. From this premise stem all further Socrates’ objections to Crito’s arguments. Socrates believes that “neither injury nor retaliation nor warding off evil by evil is ever right” (Jowett, 2009). A man must do only what he thinks is right to do. In this way, Socrates proves, that by escaping he will wrong the state and its laws, as well as its people, with whom he had so long resided. By an act of defying the laws of the state the individuals leads that state to eventual destruction, for he creates a precedent, by which anyone who is not satisfied by a certain law is able to defy it. Even if the accusations are unjust (as it is in Socrates’ case), a convict must persuade the judges otherwise or silently obey the sentence. As a professor of true virtues, Socrates would betray his own ideals by doing wrong to the state, which had raised and educated him, and with which he has a pact, sealed willingly. More so, he claims that even should he escape, he would be seen as a lawbreaker and scorned for it in any other state, and in areas which have no laws, he will be a curiosity, a clown to laugh at, but not to be respected: “You will live, but how? – as the flatterer of all men, and the servant of all men; and doing what? – eating and drinking in Thessaly, having gone abroad in order that you may get a dinner. And where will be your fine sentiments about justice and virtue then?” (Jowett, 2009). About his children he says that it would be unfair to deprive them of Athenian citizenship. Finally, if he does no wrong, he will depart his life as a victim of men, a martyr that follows the sacred laws of justice.
As we had proven by the present argument analysis, the only possible solution to Socrates’ situation was to obey the laws of his motherland and stay in prison despite Crito’s urging him to escape. As a philosopher and a truly wise man, Socrates had understood this and stayed firm in his decision, though he was obviously tempted by the possibility of escape. But he held his ideals of justice and virtue dearer than the reminder of his life, that he could prolong by his escape.
Do you like this essay?
Our writers can write a paper like this for you!
(1 votes, average: 1.00 out of 5)
Loading...