CRITO

Background:

The life and teachings of Socrates stand at the foundation of Western philosophy. He lived in
Athens during a time of transition Athens' defeat at the hands of Sparta in the Peloponnesian War
ended the Golden Age of Athenian civilization and had a tremendous influence on the Athenian
youth of his day. It seems that Socrates led a very simple life, renouncing wealth and holding
himself aloof from political ambitions, preferring instead to mingle with the crowds in Athens
public places, engaging whomever he could in conversation. Nonetheless, he did serve in several
battles during the Peloponnesian War, and that he was distinguished by his bravery. 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 favor 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. Plato's thought is mostly recorded in the form of dialogues
that feature Socrates as a main leading character. Apparently, the Socratic dialogue was a genre
form at the time: not just Plato, but many of Socrates' other students recorded philosophical
debates in this form. Plato's dialogues are generally classed into early, middle, and late periods.
The early dialogues were written soon after Socrates' death, and in them we get the clearest
picture of Socrates and Socratic philosophy. As Plato matured, however, he developed an
increasingly distinct voice and philosophical outlook.

Summary:

The Crito records the conversation that took place in the prison where Socrates was confined
awaiting his execution. It is in the form of a dialog between Socrates and Crito, an elderly
Athenian who for many years has been a devoted friend of Socrates and a firm believer in his
ethical teachings. The conversation takes place at an early hour on what proved to be the next-to-
the-last day that Socrates remained alive. Like both the Euthyphro and the Apology, this dialog
reveals something of the character of Socrates by describing the manner in which he faced
difficult circumstances without being overcome by them. In the Crito, particular attention is
given to the reasons advanced by Socrates for refusing to escape from prison as a means of
saving his own life. The circumstances were such that he might easily have done so, and his
friends were urging him to do it.

The dialog begins with Socrates asking Crito why he has arrived at so early an hour. The dawn is
just beginning to break, and Socrates has been sleeping soundly throughout the night. Crito
explains that he has been waiting in the prison for some little time but has remained silent
because he did not want to disturb Socrates' sleep. He adds that he is astonished to find that
Socrates has been able to sleep so well and to remain calm and peaceful when the time for his
execution is so close at hand. Socrates has been in prison for about a month, owing to the fact
that no execution of a criminal would be allowed in the city until a certain ship has returned from
the island of Delos. Crito reports that the ship is soon to arrive, for he has been told that it has
left Sunium and is expected to be in Athens the next day. For this reason, Crito tells Socrates that
tomorrow will be his last day alive. Socrates states that if such is the will of God he is willing to
die. However he is convinced because of a dream that he experienced that morning that there
will be a delay of one more day.

At this point, Crito pleads with Socrates to take his advice and escape from prison. He gives as
his reason that if Socrates refuses to escape and is then put to death, Crito will not only have lost
a true friend who can never be replaced, but he will also be censured by many persons who will
accuse him of failure to do what he could in order to save the life of a friend. It will be supposed
by those who are not familiar with the facts that Crito could have purchased the freedom of his
friend by paying a certain amount of money but that he refused to do so. Hence, if Socrates cares
about the reputation of his friend in the future, he will act in accordance with the request that that
friend is now making of him. Socrates must admit that the opinion of the majority is something
that cannot be ignored, for they are capable of inflicting great harm on anyone who has incurred
their disapproval.

Socrates is not concerned about the opinion of the majority, for it is capable of neither the
greatest evil nor the greatest good. It cannot make a man wise and it cannot make one foolish.
Whatever it does is largely a matter of chance. Crito asks if Socrates does not fear that escaping
from prison would cause his friends to get in trouble with the authorities of the land and that this
might cause them to lose a portion of their property or possibly suffer something that might be
even worse than that. Socrates admits that he does have that fear, but it is by no means the only
one that he has. Crito then tells him to have no such fear, for there are persons who at no great
cost are willing to save him and bring him out of prison. As for the informers, they are far from
being exorbitant in their demands, and a little money will satisfy them. Crito explains that he has
considerable means himself, all of which he would gladly use for any purpose that would aid in
saving the life of Socrates. Furthermore, if Socrates should feel hesitant about allowing Crito to
spend so much in his behalf, there are many more of his friends who are ready and willing to
supply whatever amount of money is needed for this purpose.

If these offers of assistance are not sufficient to persuade Socrates to attempt an escape from
prison, Crito presents some additional reasons in support of what he has been urging him to do.
He tells him that by remaining in prison and refusing to escape, he is playing into the hands of
his enemies and giving aid to the ones who are disregarding the demands of justice. Then, too, he
is betraying the members of his own family, especially the children, who are entitled to the
nurture, guidance, and education that he could provide by staying alive and doing what is within
his power for their welfare. If, Crito says, instead of fulfilling your obligations to them, you go
away and leave them to take their chances amid all the unfortunate circumstances that may arise;
you cannot be held blameless if they should fall into evil ways. This is not the kind of action that
is appropriate for one who professes, as you do, to be following the course of virtue. By refusing
to escape, you will be taking the easier but not the better and manlier part, and, therefore, people
will be ashamed not only of you but also of your friends, who they will maintain were lacking in
the necessary courage to save you from an untimely death.

In reply to what Crito has been saying, Socrates admits that his zeal is invaluable if it is used in
support of what is right, but if used in support of what is wrong it leads to an even greater evil.
Throughout his entire life, Socrates has made it a point not to be swayed by emotional appeals
but to follow a course that is directed by reason. Therefore, he will not forsake the principles that
he has honored for a long time but will remain true to whatever reason tells him is demanded by
them. The arguments advanced by Crito have not convinced him that he should escape from
prison, and he proceeds to set forth the reasons for rejecting them.
Crito has mentioned that, in the opinion of many persons, both Socrates and his friends will be
severely criticized if he fails to make any attempt to escape from prison. Socrates, in reply, calls
attention to the danger that is involved in following public opinion. He asks if it is not true that
the opinion of some persons should be regarded and the opinion of others be disregarded. After
Crito has admitted that this is true, the question is raised concerning whose opinion should be
regarded seriously enough to be followed. Obviously, it is the opinion of the one person who
possesses the necessary relevant information that should be followed. If this is true in regard to
physical exercise and matters pertaining to health, is it not even more important to consult the
opinion of those who have an adequate understanding about what is just and unjust, fair and foul,
or good and evil. If, acting on the advice of men who have no understanding, we injure the body,
is it not true that we will incur an even greater evil by following the advice of those who have no
proper understanding of the meaning of justice.

Crito is forced to admit that Socrates has presented a strong argument with reference to the
inadvisability of following public opinion, or even the voice of the majority, when it comes to
matters of crucial importance. Nevertheless, Crito still insists that the opinion of the many is not
something to be neglected entirely, for the simple reason that the many possess the power to put
people to death, and to save one's own life is more important than anything else he can do.
Socrates does not agree that one should save his own life at any cost. He holds that it is not life
but a good life that is to be valued above everything else. He believes, too, that a good life is
equivalent to one that is just and honorable. The other considerations that Crito has mentioned,
such as money, the loss of a good reputation, and the duty of educating one's children, are only
the doctrines of the multitude. They are not to be accepted just because they express the opinions
of the majority but are to be followed only in those instances where they are supported by good
reasons. From this it follows that the question confronting Crito and Socrates is whether it is
right and honorable for one who has been put in prison by the constituted authorities to escape or
to allow others to aid him in so doing by the use of money or any other unlawful means.

Both Socrates and Crito have admitted on previous occasions that one should never intentionally
do what is wrong, and now they must decide if they are to abide by that principle or depart from
it. If they do abide by it, they must admit that it would be wrong for Socrates to heed the advice
of Crito by trying to escape from prison. An escape would be a violation of the law of the land
and would imply that Socrates is an enemy of that which makes for an orderly society. He cannot
do this without going back on the principles for which he has stood throughout his entire life.
Still, Crito is not convinced, for he maintains that Socrates has been the victim of unjust laws,
and for this reason it is proper and right for him to disobey them. Socrates then reminds him that
to act in that manner would be a case of returning evil for evil, which would contradict what he
has already admitted, should never be done. To return evil for evil may be in harmony with the
morality of the many, but as he has indicated before, public opinion when not supported by good
reasons is never a safe guide to follow. Crito is of the opinion that it would not be wrong for
Socrates to escape because he has been imprisoned unjustly. Socrates does not agree with him
and, accordingly, sets forth his reasons for holding that one is obliged to submit to the
punishment imposed on him, even though the punishment may be an unjust one. His argument is
based on the fact that he is a citizen of the state, having been born, nourished, and educated
within its borders. In fact, he is a child of the state and has an obligation toward it similar to that
of a child to its parents. By living in the state for these many years and accepting the benefits it
has provided, he has indicated a willingness to accept its laws and regulations and to abide by the
decisions of its courts, regardless of what those decisions might be.

Socrates asks Crito to consider for a moment what the officials of the government might say to
him under the existing circumstances. They might say something like the following: "There is
clear proof Socrates that we and the city were not displeasing to you. Of all Athenians you have
been the most constant resident in the city, which, as you never leave, you may be supposed to
love . . . and you acquiesced in our government of you; and this is the state in which you begat
your children, which is a proof of your satisfaction. Moreover, you might, if you had liked, have
fixed the penalty at banishment in the course of the trial, the state which refuses to let you go
now would have let you go then. But you pretended that you preferred death to exile, and that
you were not grieved at death. And now you have forgotten these fine sentiments, and pay no
respect to us the laws, of whom you are the destroyer; and are doing only what a miserable slave,
would do, running away and turning your back upon the compacts and agreements which you
made as a citizen.

Crito admits there is no adequate reply to an argument of this type on the part of the state, and he
continues to listen as Socrates develops still further the charges that could be brought against him
in the event that he should escape. They could say that he has broken the covenants and
agreements he made with them, not in haste or on the spur of the moment, but in times of leisure,
without any deception or compulsion on their part. He has had seventy years to think it over, and
during this time he was free to leave the city and go to any of those places that he praised for
their good government, but instead of doing this, he chose to remain in our city and to abide by
its laws.

If, under the circumstances that have just been pointed out, Socrates should escape from prison,
it would be of no benefit either to him or to his friends. Those who were known to have aided
him in making his escape would be driven into exile or lose their property and be deprived of
citizenship. If he should go to one of the neighboring cities, such as Thebes or Megara, he would
be regarded as an enemy and all of their patriotic citizens would look upon him as a destroyer of
the laws. In addition, they would argue that anyone who is a destroyer of the laws would also be
a corrupter of the young and foolish portion of humanity. If Socrates should go away from well-
governed states to Crito's friends in Thessaly, his reception there would be no better, for the
people would ridicule him for preaching lofty sentiments about justice and virtue and then
betraying all that he has taught in order to gain a little longer life. By refusing to escape, Socrates
can depart from this life in innocence, a sufferer and not a doer of evil, and a victim, not of the
laws but of men. On the other hand, if he goes forth returning evil for evil, and injury for injury,
breaking the covenants and agreements he has made, the citizens of the state, including his own
friends, will despise him and look upon him as an enemy who has done his best to destroy them.
All of this, Socrates tells Crito, is the voice that he seems to hear murmuring in his ears and that
prevents him from hearing anything else. He then tells Crito to speak if he has anything to say in
reply to what has been said. Since Crito has nothing more to say, Socrates asks that he be
allowed to follow the intimations of the will of God.
REFERENCES:

Patterson, Charles H. CliffsNotes on Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo. 10 Apr 2018