You are on page 1of 6

The Crito

The Law of Athens as a character


The laws are personified by Socrates so as to give them a
voice; this is important because for the Greeks a just or
unjust action is something that one does to someone else
Thus, if Socrates wants so say that escaping from prison is unjust, he
must say who he would be wronging

Summary
Dialogie takes place in Socrates prison cell

Crito, Socs friend, has made arrangements to break Socs out


and has come to convice him to go along

Crito’s arguments why Soc should escapte


Socs death will reflect badly on his friends – people with think that they
did nothing to save him

Soc should not worry about the financial costs to his friends – they are
willing to pay for his escape and for him to have a comfortable life in
exile

If Soc stayed, he would be aiding his enemies in wronging him unjustly


and so would be acting unjustly himself

Soc would be abandoning his sons and leaving them without a father

Soc’s response:
Should only worry about the opinions of the wise; and instead of worrying
about reputations, one should be concerned with acting rightly

But, Soc agrees that they must analyze whether or not it would be just for
him to escacpe; if it is just, he will do it

Here, Soc introduces the voice of the laws; they speak to him and explain
why it would be unjust to leave his cell
Since the laws exist as only one entity, to break one would be to break
them all, and doing so would cause them great harm

The citizen is bound to the laws like a child it to a parent, and so to go against the
laws would be like striking a parent

So, rather than break the laws, Soc should try to persuade them to let him go (next
argument)

The Laws present the citizen’s duty to them in the form of a social
contract – by choosing to live in Athens, a citizen is implicitly
endorsing the Laws, and is willing to abide by them (this should not
be confused with an agreement between citizens to live together
under laws – Rousseau); the idea here is that all men who are of
agen can decide whether the laws suit them, and if not, they are
free to leave

As Soc has lived 70 years in Athens, he should be in accord with this contract

If Soc were to break from prison now, having so consistently validated this contract,
he would be making himself and outlaw who would not be welcome in
any other civilized state

And when he dies, he will be harshly judged by the underworld for behaving so
unjustly towards the Laws

Thus, Soc convinces Crito that it would be better not to escape

Analysis and Themes


Plato makes a distinction between just laws and the unjust
behavior of Soc’s accusers; but, the problem is that the
accusers have unjustly sentenced him using the Just laws
This is the reasons the laws have their own voice – to separate them from
the accusers

However, there is a question to how clearly one can separate the laws of
the state from those how apply them

Problem – In this case, the people of the state condemn Soc and the laws
of the state follow suit by convincing Soc that he must face death
in order not to wrong them
But if both the people and the laws have ruled that he must be executed, then
either the people are siding with the laws or the laws are siding with the
people

Regardless of which is the case, it seems odd to say that the Laws are just and
must be respected and the people are unjust and should not be
respected

Similarly, Soc argues (in response to Cs claim that if he stays


he would be aiding the wrong doing of his enemies) that in
escaping he would be harming the Laws
But, if the laws are just and the people unjust, the no matter what Soc
does, he will be committing a wrong

Is there any way for Socrates to persuade the Laws that he should be
allowed to go free without also having to persuade his accusers?
And if he must persuade his accusers in order to change the Laws,
that would suggest that the two are the same: if we believe that his
accusers have acted unjustly in sentencing him, then the Laws might
also be guilty of injustice. Clearly, Plato's choice to personify the
Laws of Athens is not without problems.

The only way out of this is to view the Laws as tyrannical (ie, must be
obeyed no matter what); so if one is found guilty by the jury, he is
found guilty according to the laws

But, this does not sound like justice

Notes:
There are good reasons to think that this is a later work of
Plato, and thus not Soc’s own arguments
Here, Soc states that he knows where his soul will go after death

He also presents his own arguments here

Questions
Is it always the case that no injurious action can be just?
Socrates is more free by remaining, according to justice, in prison, than
Crito is by remaining outside of prison by doing small acts of
injustice such as payoffs, etc. If Socrates escapes, he will be
breaking out of justice into injustice. The question Plato places
before us: Who is the real prisoner -- one who is enslaved to public
opinion and material concerns or one who is indifferent to
anything but reason and the voice of justice. The irony is: Just as
Crito is attempting to free or save the body of Socrates, Socrates
is vigorously attempting to "save" the soul of his friend Crito.
Socrates does not fear death or physical harm; he fears doing
injustice or spiritual harm.

In referring to the trial, Crito chides, "you might have saved yourself."
Suitable political and financial arrangements could have been
made to preclude even being brought to trial; and Socrates could
have defended himself better by flattering the judges, etc. "Save"
has two meanings here. Socrates had to choose between two
types of saving (saving his body and saving his soul). Socrates
saved himself in the higher sense precisely by not saving himself
in the lower sense.

The question is: Should Socrates go along with Crito's plan and flee from prison in order to
avoid death (drinking the hemlock)? Thus, Socrates begins the dialectic (deliberation)
--"shall or shall not do as you say..." This is serious business, not "talk for the sake of talk"
(mental exercise). It is a question of how one should live ... and die. Socrates is going to die;
Crito is not. Theoretically, Crito should be disinterested and clear-headed (not swayed by
circumstances); he is not. Socrates has every reason to be affected by circumstances;
apparently, he is not. Why? Because in Crito, feelings of shame, etc. rule reason; whereas
in Socrates, reason rules (controls, restrains) feeling. Socrates is not without feeling; he has
tremendous zeal and passion. For one thing, he has great feeling for his friend Crito (he
sees Crito's condition as critical); but his feelings are under control. He does not get carried
away by passion or desires as an incompetent rider gets carried away by a powerful and
uncontrolled horse.

Question: Many Greek philosophers emphasized the importance of self-control and


maintained that the truly "free" person is one who is able to guide and control his ambition
(zeal) and desires. Do you agree or disagree with this view? Does freedom mean "self-
restraint" or "lack of self-restraint"? Or does freedom mean simply "lack of external
restraint" or not being hindered from doing whatever we want? Discuss your answers.
As the student of gymnastics attends to the advice of the expert -- the physician or trainer --
in matters of spiritual health, one should attend only to praise or blame of those who are
experts in justice (physicians of the soul). The many, as we read in the Apology, are not
experts, though they think they are. The understanding of health (of the body) is parallel to
the understanding of justice (of the soul). Socrates is trying to wean Crito away from
overconcern with the body and overconcern with wealth and reputation. Just as the many
are not physicians of the body, even fewer, if any, are physicians of the soul. The advice of
the crowd is irrelevant.
Question: Do you agree that, when it comes to the most important things in life -- such as
how to live well -- the majority are usually wrong? What effect would this view have with
respect to democracy, where the majority rule and are required to choose intelligently their
political leaders?

Doing wrong is always evil (because it disrupts the order of one's soul). We must do no
wrong (injustice). We must not return evil for evil (revenge). Few hold this view because
they do not understand that revenge brings external and physical harm to the victim, but
internal and spiritual harm to the perpetrator. The presupposition is that moral injury or
harm is worse than physical injury or harm. The question becomes: Do I wrong moral
principles if I escape because I have been wronged by men. There is at work here the view
that one person cannot directly damage another's soul, but one can damage a moral milieu,
principles of order in society (nomoi, laws, customs institutions) upon which every citizen
depends.

Question: Discuss Socrates' view that revenge is self-destructive. Do you agree? Why or
why not?
Socrates is saying that every individual is raised by both parents and social institutions
(nomoi), such as language. If this is so, should nomoi be accorded the same respect and
obedience as parents? Why or why not?
Question: Are twentieth-century American "nomoi" good parents? Explain your answer.
In a sense, the "soul," the ordering principle of the city, is its laws, both written and
unwritten, its tradition, its "spirit," its culture. One cannot directly harm the soul of
another, but by committing injustice one can harm the fabric of society which in turn can
indirectly harm fellow citizens. For the caretakers of custom are the souls of men who
revere custom; customs are sustained by souls that cherish them -- keep them alive. Every
unjust act is both self-destructive and destructive of respect for nomoi. Nomoi bind citizens
together. Every unjust act is a loosening of this tie, this social order. Respect for nomoi is
like respect for one's parents, the source of one's existence. Nomoi are the nurturing
conditions, the soil, the social atmosphere, that make existence in the city (including birth,
education, marriage, etc.) possible. More apropos to Socrates' mission, without conventions
and institutions and social structures (including language), life and dialogue would not be
possible. Without Athenian conventions and institutions, Socrates could not engage in the
philosophical activity (dialectic) which enabled him to improve himself as he assisted in the
improvement of others. Moreover, the nomoi enabled him to attempt to establish,
strengthen, and reconstitute these customs on a firmer more reasonable basis. The very
"laws" that were used by men to convict Socrates unjustly were the sine qua non, the
necessary conditions that made Socrates' very life and career possible. One should not be a
"thankless child." If one subverts institutions and conventions, one destroys one's own
enabling context, as well as the matrix and context of the lives and activities of others.
Customs change, but life without customs (laws, institutions, language, etc.) is impossible.
To be a human being is to be a citizen; one cannot untie oneself from that very social
context that makes any action possible. The Greeks were particularly aware of this fact.
Human souls are more important than human bodies, and human souls are more
important than human institutions; but human souls need human bodies and human
institutions to improve themselves by just actions (speeches and deeds) in the human city.
Human institutions are structures that occupy a midpoint between bodies and souls. They
are more spiritual than bodies and more material than souls. They are incarnated ideas, as
spoken words are concepts with flesh and blood. Thus, we can understand the importance
of dialogue or meaningful conversation for the Greeks. Socrates and Crito are friends and
fellow citizens, who despite their different value systems, have a common ground -- their
friendship and their speech together. Unfortunately, Crito does not realize how even mildly
illegal acts (like bribing the guard) can chip away at the social order that makes friendship
and conversation possible. Every citizen is both beneficiary and guardian with respect to
institutions. Every act either contributes to or detracts from the moral and social
environment. Socrates' post is to remind citizens of this responsibility. But what is a post
but a position in relationship with and a role within a city? Without social order, there are
no posts. When a citizen examines his unexamined life, he seeks to find his place in the city,
before God (piety) and among men (justice). But place makes sense only with respect to
adjoining place (context). Socrates' place is philosophical. The order of the city requires his
activity; the improvement of his soul requires his activity for the sake of the city. Without
philosophical conversation, Socrates' life has no meaning; his life is his place within the
city. Exile or escape would bring an end to Socrates' life in the only sense it matters. He
would be making his soul worse, betraying nurturing custom, and ceasing to converse in
his accustomed manner. Even death, where there is a possibility of dialogue with the
heroes, seems preferable.
Question: Discuss this view of the relationship of human beings with nomoi (customs, laws,
and institutions). Do you agree? Why or why not? What ought to be the relationship of
twentieth-century Americans with their nomoi? Explain your answer.

You might also like