Exposition and Analysis of The Crito
by Stephen Marsh

Socrates starts his argument saying he is a man driven by reason, and that he could only escape the punishment, against the will of the Athenians, if he could be convinced that it is the ethical thing to do. Even though he believes that his death would result in certain wrongs, namely the loss of money, loss of character, and the loss of the education of the children of Athens. He refutes these arguments by stating the fact that these are only “ideals of the multitude,” and that they should not be considered. He concludes that he must regard what the one man with understanding says and not the many. Therefore,. he sets out to come to a decision by reason. His argument can be broken down into three basic rationales.

Socrates first argument is that one ought to live a good life. A good life is the same as a “just and honorable one.” In order to live a just life he must not break the law and escape. He believes that he must not do what a “slave would do, running away and turning your back upon the compacts and agreements which you made as a citizen.” Living a good life is the fundamental principal which defines his ethical objective.

Socrates’ second premise holds that it is never right to commit a wrong under any circumstances. From this he reasons that even an evil acted in retaliation to another evil is unacceptable. Because of this principle, Socrates denies the idea that he should brake the law because it was unjust toward him. He believes that a society where laws are overthrown by it’s citizens has no power and would be destroyed. Socrates asks on behalf of the state, “and because we think right to destroy you, do you think that you have any right to destroy us in return.?” Because of his principle against retaliation, he can not justify overthrowing the laws of the state merely because he believes them to be wrong. Furthermore, the laws of the state raised him, he sees himself as a child of the government, and believes he should treat the state like a father and obey it’s punishments.

Socrates’ third argument is that one ought to keep his agreements. He believes he has entered an agreement with the laws and that the laws are just. By choosing to live in Athens he has submitted to an “implied contract.” If he can not convince the state that it’s commands are wrong, which he failed to do when he defended himself, he must obey those commands. Socrates claims that the agreement is especially apparent with him because he has been the “most constant resident” of Athens, he has raised his children there and he has clearly favored the city. On the state’s behalf he claims there is, “very strong evidence that you were satisfied with us and with the city. You would not have been content to stay at home in it more than other Athenians, unless you had been satisfied with it more than they.” He then poses the question, “are we right in saying that you agreed to be governed according to us in deed, and not by word only?” Socrates must answer yes and therefore not go against his contract with the government.

His conclusion is that it would be wrong to break the laws because he would be braking the convictions that he has always held. He says he has to think of justice first and not of his life because it would only disgrace him.

Certainly I believe that Socrates was trying to act out of rationality and justice, and he is to be praised for the devotion to his ethics. However, I believe that his reasoning was incorrect. The decision to escape would not have been an unjust act. His argument can be broken down into three foundations . Let us examine these rationalization to determine if his argument is sound.

His first premise, that one ought not to break laws in order to live a good life, can only be regarded as true if those laws serve justice. The reason that the laws exist is to establish justice. Socrates obeys the laws so that he may further justice, but he believes that his murder would not be serving justice, it in fact would be an injustice. So by obeying these laws, he would be serving injustice and therefore not living a good life. His first premise is only valid if he believes that the laws are creating good. He does not believe his sentence is just, therefore he can not morally serve those laws in creating injustice and still be living a good life. Socrates must only obey those laws that serve justice, for justice is the very reason they exist. Consider a man convicted of murder, but who is innocent of the crime. He would certainly be justified in any means that he takes to free himself of the mistaken conviction. The law was not intended to convict innocent men, and would also have not want this man to be punished unjustly. So it stands to reason that an innocent man would be justified by himself, and the law, in escaping his sentence. The law was intended to do justice, but in the instances that if fail, the victims have a responsibility to correct that unfairness. This principal is evident throughout history. The slavery laws of early America are an excellent example of this principal, as is the government of the Nazi Germany. Certainly, the result of these laws cannot be morally supported. Tomas Jefferson wrote about this principal in The Declaration of Independence, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,” Socrates recognized that his execution was wrong. His second assertion, that it is never acceptable to commit a wrong, supports that he should have worked to stop the wrong. To stay in jail and allow an injustice to occur is morally unacceptable.

His third premise states that he has agreed with the laws and believe them to be just. He believes it is his duty to honor his agreement, and obey the laws. So there remains the idea that even though it is unjust to obey the law, it should still be obeyed to honor his agreement, for breaking it would be unjust. But this commits the same error as the first premise. He believes it is wrong to break an agreement with the law simply because it is the law, and is ignoring that fact that he obeys the laws in order to act justly. It is the principal of justice that gives reason to obey the laws. And when justice would be violated by obeying the laws, one must not obey the laws. Otherwise you would be creating injustice, or in Socrates case allowing an unjust act to be committed, in order to further justice. This is obviously not a sound argument and therefore cannot justify the decision not to escape.

Socrates was right in his belief that one should always live a good and just life. In order to do that, one must always act in order to further justice, and prevent injustice. Therefore, since Socrates recognizes his execution as an injustice, he is morally required to resist it. Socrates should escape from jail in order to prevent this injustice.

Back to Papers

Download MS Word file
Crito.doc