Analysis of the Crito

Analysis of the Crito

The life of Socrates provides one example of someone who seeks a justification for his or her moral actions by living out his convictions even to the point of death. Socrates tries to use reason (rather than the values embedded in his culture) to determine whether an action is right or wrong. The dialogue called the "Crito" contains an image of Socrates trying to adopt what could be called the “moral point of view” (as opposed to the point of view of one's religion or society) when faced with the difficult decision of weather or not to spare his own life. After conviction for teachings against popular opinion, Socrates was sent to the jail where he was to be executed. At that time, a ship was sailing on a sacred mission and no executions were to be performed during its absence. Thus it happened that Socrates was confined to his cell for some 30 days. Two days before the ship was to return, an old friend named Crito came to visit. Crito told Socrates that plans were in place to prepare for his escape and journey to another country. Socrates points out that by escaping, he would be breaking the Laws. And so the practical question in this dialogue becomes: Ought I to break the Laws, even if they are injust?

The Argument (48b-54d) The First Premise (48b-49b): ONE OUGHT TO LIVE RIGHTLY. The most important thing is "to live rightly" ("living well" and "living justly" are the same). Would it be right to disobey the laws (to escape from jail) even if they are in and of themselves unjust? Socrates argues that the Laws are more honorable than one's parents, for they too offer structure, educate, and nurture their citizens but have to do so on a larger scale and are therefore held to a higher standard of morality. Just as one should respect the decisions of one's parents, so should one respect the decisions of the Laws, but to an even greater degree because the laws are there to govern all people where a parent’s are only meant for the individual family. Socrates has been a citizen under these laws his entire life, and by choosing to remain as a citizen of this state, he pledges an oath to uphold the laws set forth by the governing parties because he as a member of their population, has pledged his allegiance to the leaders.

If Socrates would choose to leave the state, he would be seen as a corrupting force wherever he went because he came under opposition to the state and fled when he did not agree with it’s practices for his own life. This in itself is the very thing which he taught against, for by only choosing to obey the rules of the state when it suits a person makes them a hippocrate and a shallow person of little moral fiber. If one has the ability to choose whether to obey a law, then he is destroying the power of the law; destroying a law is unjust, for men require a community and a community requires laws in order to function. It would put Socratese in a precarious position in the afterlife if he failed to see this correlation.

For Socrates the main concern that he faces is whether or not he would be doing the just or moral thing by leaving the prison and refusing the sentence of the jury. Socrates wants to do no wrong, and he feels to not abide by the juries sentence is wrong, however Crito reminds Socrates that he has been wronged by the jury. Socrates is in fact guilty of the crimes he was charged with, but the crime is not a thing which deserves to be punished by death, because a citizen should have the right to challenge the authority of the state. Crito urges him to leave stating he does not need to accept the verdict of a jury that has wronged him. Socrates responds by pointing