Student’s Name
Instructor’s Name
Course No. & Title
Plato’s Stance in Crito
Introduction
Crito is a dialogue piece authored by Plato. The work is dominated by an argument between Socrates and Crito regarding the justice sense regarding the former’s escape from the latter’s cell masterminded. This essay explores Plato, the author’s stance in the argument between the two. In the dialogue, Socrates shares and represents the author’s views regarding the escape. As such, Plato’s stance about Socrates’ designed to escape from Crito’s cells is that the plan is unworthy and contemptible. His main rationale is that the plan is unjust. Ideally, both Socrates and the author are right in a great sense and wrong in a less sense, while Crito is wrong in a great sense and right in a less sense that Socrates’ escape is undeserved because it would amount to some form of injustice and unethical ways.
Contextual Background
Crito is an ancient Greek dialogue authored by Plato. Events of the piece take place in Socrates’ cell. While awaiting his execution, Crito, a character in the dialogue and Socrates’ student and wealthy old friend, sneaks in to see him. He has plans to free Crito to exile courtesy of the approaching ship from Delos and save him from his death penalty that would follow afterward. However, Socrates seems unwilling and instead is keen to face his execution. Crito puts forward various arguments in a bid to convince him to escape. Socrates introduces the voice of the Laws of Athens to help them decide whether he should escape or not from the ground of justice. The voice guides him that it would be unjust for him to escape. As such, Socrates argues out Critos against leaving. Given that Socrates represents the author’s views, it is apparent that his stance about his escape from the cells is Plato’s as well. Categorically, Plato’s stance is that Socrates’ escape plan by Crito is unworthy and contemptible because it is unjust. From a critical point of view, he is right in a great sense and wrong in a less sense, while Crito is wrong in a great sense and right in a less sense because it is undeserved because it would amount to some form of injustice and unethicalness.
Analysis
Injustice
Crito argues that Socrates’ detention is unjust and so will be his execution, but Socrates believes that his escape will only do justice more harm. Crito believes that Socrates is in the cell unfairly and that Socrates’ execution would be advocating for unjust ruling and actions, especially from their enemies such as the government. However, Socrates is concerned about whether the escape would be just despite all the injustices done against him. If it be, he will go with Crito, but if it would not, then Crito would let him remain in the cell and wait for his execution. Therefore, Socrates consults the Voice of the Laws of Athens to help in ruling out this statement. The voice rules against Crito, that Socrates’ escape from the cells would be not only unjust but also illegal. According to the voice, since the law exists as one entity, breaking one would amount to breaching all of them, and in doing so, Socrates would have caused great harm to society (6). The voice uses the analogy of a child and a parent to illustrate this point; that citizens are bound to the Laws the same way children are bound to parents; hence, and so to go against the Laws would be like striking a parent (7). In this argument, Socrates brings up justice in revenge. He is of the view that evil is evil despite nature and circumstance as revealed in the following dialogue excerpt:
“SOCRATES: For doing, evil to another is the same as injuring him?
CRITO: Very true
SOCRATES: Then we ought not to retaliate or render evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him” (2).
The main subject in this excerpt is that one wrong cannot breach the gap created by another. Escaping from the cell is illegal in itself, and even when Socrates’ was detained unfairly, his escape would not make up for the injustices done against him but lead to more unfairness to the laws of Athens and its society because it would be a form of revenge. Accordingly, it would be better than Socrates persuaded the laws to release him than break them by escaping. In this sense, Socrates and Plato’s counterargument to Crito’s persuasion on this factor is reasonable, valid, and true.
Unethicalness
In breaking the laws, Socrates’ would not only be acting illegally and unjustly but also unethically. The Laws of Athens present citizens’ duty in the form of social contract and by residing in the city; all citizens are es,sentially validating them and assenting to observing them (9). Having lived happily in Athens for 70 years, Socrates’ highly regarded city knows that he must continue obeying these laws. Thus, Socrates makes it clear that he has consistently validated the social contract with his whole life. If he were to break it now, Socrates would be making himself an outlaw who would be an outcast even in other civilized cities, and on dying, he would be harshly judged in the underworld for behaving unethically towards the laws of his city and his crimes against the social contract.
In this context, Socrates seems to be more grounded on the moral good. He is of the view that you should never do wrong. He believes that Athens raised him like a child from birth; hence, retaliating against it is like striking down one’s parents. Socrates considers that an individual’s country deserves more honor and loyalty than their parents and even ancestors, and therefore, acting against them is so ungodly and morally unacceptable. His escape from the cells would amount to turning his back to his country, which is morally and ethically wrong. Such is why he advises Crito against worrying about public opinion and instead focus on behaving well. For him, such actions are unwise wrong; hence, expert advice and behaving well should matter the most.
Critique
Socrates arrives at a conclusion, which defies common sense’s understanding of justice. While nothing about his detention and execution looks, Socrates thinks that his escape would still be, at least, as fruitless as his death. Hence, to the greatest sense, he owes Athens his obedience and loyalty in whatever orders this city will give him because he has benefited from its citizenship.
Though the argument is convincing, Socrates makes some points that do not hold water. A good example is a claim that his escape would destroy the law. This argument is exaggerated and so invites refutation. Moreover, even though his escape would generally be unproductive to his friends and himself, a broader sense of thought might oppose that other cities’ citizens would benefit from Socrates’ teaching and wisdom, and he would act as a force of civilization.
Conclusion
Both Socrates and Crito’s arguments have flaws of logic. However, from a critical analysis of the aspects of injustice and unethicalness expressed in the piece, Socrates’ views are valid because they are grounded and uphold the rule of law and society’s moral good. Because he is detained unfairly, Crito reasons that Socrates’ execution would be unjust; hence, his escaping is worthy. However, Socrates, convinced by the Voice of the Laws of Athens, refuses to escape because it would amount to retaliating against his own land raised and cared for him for 70 years. For him, this would is wrong; hence, he convinces Crito against the living. Given Socrates’ represents Plato, the author’s voice in this piece, his stance is Plato’s stance.
Works Cited
Plato, Crito. 2018. Print. [Place of publication not identified]: Lightning Source Inc.: Wildside Press.