Socrates Argument in the Crito - Essay Example

Socrates’ Argument in the Crito According to Crito, until the boat which left before Socrates’ trial would arrive was not in Athens, then no execution should take place. However, since the boat would arrive in Athens on that day, Crito urgently requested Socrates to escape from prison. What followed and transpired between Socrates and Crito was a meaningful dialogue where the latter convinced the former that an escape from prison would be the best solution. The philosopher, however, through a Socratic dialogue, reiterated his refusal to escape because he believed that a morally upright life would be better than mere survival. More importantly, Socrates emphasized in his argument against Crito that he had to follow the law. The first premise of the argument of Socrates is, “If a citizen actively or tacitly accepts the benefits of the States Laws, then that citizen agrees to abide by all those Laws.” The second premise is, “Socrates actively accepted the benefits of the States Laws. The conclusion is, “Therefore, Socrates must obey the Laws and command to drink hemlock rather than flee Athens.” Although Socrates’ argument sounds theoretically possible, the problems with the two premises as well as his faulty answers to Crito’s suggestions somehow makes the whole argument unsound. Socrates’ case was that of a certain death penalty through drinking of the hemlock. Crito arrived in prison in Athens in order to convince Socrates to escape for that was obviously and logically his only chance to escape. Crito offers him four reasons to escape. First, he offered him a bribe of money. Second, he told him that it was Socrates’ friends desire to help him. Third, Crito said that Socrates’ survival would benefit the majority. Lastly, Crito emphasized the idea of the importance of posterity to Socrates. Nevertheless, Socrates refused for the fact that none of these four ideas mean the good and upright life that Socrates has been trying to emphasize. According to Socrates, “…the most important thing is not life, but the good life” (Crito 48b, 51). The basis of this good and morally upright life is the good life that would result if Socrates did not disobey the laws of Athens, which now makes up the essence of his argument. Therefore, for Socrates, the alternative to the evil decision to escape is the morally upright decision to stay and obey the laws of Athens in the name of justice. However, the major premise of Socrates’ argument has flaws of its own. It says, “If a citizen actively or tacitly accepts the benefits of the States Laws, then that citizen agrees to abide by all those Laws.” First of all, it is one that proposes a generalization or a non-sequitur. Just because a citizen actively or tacitly accepts the benefits of the State Laws, it does not necessarily mean that a citizen has the duty to abide by these laws. The duty to abide by the law clearly does not depend on its benefits but on possible sanctions if such a duty is not fulfilled. Moreover, as acceptance of the benefits coming from the law is not mandated, so is the duty to abide by the law. Thus, the major premise of Socrates is actually already faulty in logic. Moreover, in defense of the argument, Socrates knew that he was unjustly sentenced to death, but said to Crito, “One must neither repay an injustice nor cause harm to any man, no matter what one suffers because of him” (49c). This is more of Socrates’ virtue of goodness rather than a virtue of justice. If therefore Socrates were to defend the righteousness of this rule, he should have at least thought that this rule was impractical. The reason is that if one must neither repay an injustice, then it means that Athens itself should not have jailed Socrates in the first place since it was not supposed to make him repay an unjust act. Moreover, no one has any right to accuse one another or to have anyone arrested, because, according to Socrates’ rule, “One must neither repay an injustice nor cause harm to any man.” Nevertheless, Socrates was accused and so it should have been clear to him that nobody followed the rule that he was trying to emphasize. The reality is that the laws were harsh and so Socrates should have thought that everything was merely a matter of revenge. Since the Athenian government unjustly accused him, it would simply be better that he should escape in retaliation. Moreover, Socrates defends himself in front of Crito by telling him that a disobedience against the law of the prison, which is the act of escaping, is tantamount to the destruction of the other laws and that of the civic community. According to Socrates, “By attempting this deed [escaping from prison], aren’t you [Socrates] planning to do nothing other than destroy us, the laws, and the civic community, as much as you can?” (50b). However, this is obviously and clearly another non-sequitur because just because one is escaping and therefore showing disrespect toward the law of the court, it does not necessarily mean that one was already against all the laws of the state. Moreover, just because one was escaping from prison does not mean that one was destroying the civic community which the law sought to protect. Perhaps, escaping from the law would disgrace the civic community to a slight degree but in reality, no one among the Athenians in Athens would really actually care about whether Socrates should escape or not. Another reason is that there was no way for Socrates to possibly know the reverberations or consequences of his escape. It was clearly an exaggeration if he said his escape would lead to the crumbling of society as if he was really a very important person in Athens during that time. If he was indeed important, then he would not have been arrested. Furthermore, Socrates emphasized to Crito that the destruction of the laws of the Athenian society as a result of an escape from prison would only be done by a despicable slave. According to Socrates, as a personification of the laws, “By trying to destroy us [laws], you [Socrates] are doing what the most despicable slave would do, trying to run away contrary to the contract and the agreement by which you agreed to be governed by us” (52d). For one to label every prisoner who escaped as a “despicable slave” without even wanting to know his motives for escaping would therefore be an example of narrow-mindedness. One should therefore not just generalize things and label people as this and that unless or until one has known the real reason behind the act. Socrates was acting here as if he condemned anyone who escaped from prison, without actually knowing in the first place whether the imprisonment was even just or not. Thus, with such problems of the major premise, it would therefore be impossible for Socrates to say that a citizen like him must abide by the laws of Athens. Aside from the problems of the major premise, the minor premise has one problem too. The second premise is “Socrates actively accepted the benefits of the States Laws.” Although it could be true that Socrates indeed enjoyed the benefits of the State Laws of the Athenian society, it is clear that Socrates did not benefit at all from the unjust imprisonment, let alone from the drinking of the hemlock. Therefore, since he did not receive such benefits of the States Laws, then it would just be reasonable to think that he had no duty to obey all those Laws. However, perhaps as a martyr and not as a normal citizen of Athens, Socrates accepted the punishment as something to glorify his ideals. However, in this decision of his, he was clearly not being reasonable. Socrates’ conclusion that he must drink the hemlock instead of fleeing Athens on the instructions of Crito, was rather based on an illogical syllogism. First, the major premise assumed the dutiful acceptance of the Laws just because one would get benefit from them, assumed that disobedience to the criminal law was disobedience to all lows, and assumed that one’s violation of the law meant the destruction of the Laws and the civic community. The minor premise was also wrong in saying that Socrates indeed benefited from the law when he was even unjustly proposed. Therefore, Socrates did not have any clear and logical reason to stay in prison and by any means had all the change to escape. Top of Form Bottom of Form Works Cited Crito. n.d.. Web. 6 Dec. 2014. Read More