Crito's arguments
Crito's arguments
Crito came prepared with a set of arguments to convince the stubborn Socrates of his position:
(1) Socrates would not be damaging the reputation of his friends by fleeing (but, Crito later points out, Crito's friends would suffer a drop in reputation if
they were perceived as failing to help Socrates)
(2) Socrates need not worry about the risk to his friends
(3) Socrates need not worry about the financial cost to his friends
(4) There are other city states he can move to that offer a pleasurable and comfortable place for him to live
(5) Not fleeing would be acting unjustly by allowing an injustice to happen against himself.
(6) Not fleeing would be acting unjustly by causing his sons to lose their father.
(7) It is an act of cowardice to accept the injustice being done to him without fighting it.
These seven arguments can be categorized roughly into three groups:
(1) The consequences of fleeing are not as bad as the consequences of not fleeing. This type of argument is what ethicists refer to as "consequentialist", or
arguing by the positive and negative consequences of a certain act. If an act has positive consequences, it is a good thing to do, if an act has negative
consequences, it is a bad thing to do, and finally, if an act has both good and bad consequences, we need to weight the two to determine whether the act is
right or wrong. In other words, the main relevant feature in an act for determining rightness or wrongness are the consequences on people.
The first argument offers an example of this, when Crito argues that his reputation would not be harmed by helping Socrates to flee, but would be hurt if he
did not help Socrates to flee. In particular, Crito is saying that if he helps Socrates to flee, people will forgive him since he was seen as acting on behalf of a
friend, however if he does not help Socrates to flee, then the people of Athens will remember him as a disloyal person with few principles. Not to mention,
if Socrates flees, then the life of an innocent man has been saved. Therefore, by the consequences of the act, it seems Socrates should flee.
The financial burden is an interesting example of this too. Crito would have to spend quite a bit of money for Socrates to flee, however Crito is incredibly
wealthy. If he were a poor person, perhaps it would be understandable for him not to put himself deeper into poverty by bribing some guards and border
agents. However, since Crito is rich, he is able to spare the expense without the consequence being severe financial hardship.
The arguments (1), (2), (3) and (4) can all be grouped into this category.
(2) To flee is to stop an injustice. This argument rests on the notion that we must act to stop injustice when we have the opportunity. We have a duty in our
lives to stand up for justice. This translates to having a duty to do what is just, and to stop an injustice when we have the power to do so. Therefore, if a
man is about to die in an unjust execution, and you have the power to prevent it from happening, you have a duty to do so. This could be construed as a
form of what philosophers call "Deontology", or argument by duty. Since Socrates was concerned with justice and doing the right thing all the time, he
probably would have found this argument a little more convincing than those in the first group.
Martin Luther King Jr voiced a form of this kind of argument in his Letter from Birmingham Jail :
Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens
in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of
destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone
who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.
Martin Luther King Jr saw us as having a duty to fight against injustice wherever we could, and to stand with the victims of injustice where we had the
power to do so. It formed an underpinning of his own notion of civil disobedience (in other words, breaking the law to achieve some good end)
An example of this is the notion that the execution of Socrates was an injustice, and that Socrates therefore had a duty to escape and prevent the injustice
from happening. The injustice is his own death, and he can prevent that injustice from happening by fleeing. Since we have a duty to stand up to and
prevent injustice, then he should flee.
The other example is the argument that by not fleeing, he would be committing a sort of injustice against his children. The notion here is that fathers have a
duty to care for their children. It is an act of injustice if one fails to care for their children. If he dies, Socrates obviously cannot take care of his sons.
Therefore, he has a duty to escape so that he can live and fulfill his family obligations.
Arguments (5) and (6) fit in this category.
(3) Fleeing shows moral virtue, and not fleeing shows moral vice. This argument fits neatly in Ancient Greek notions of ethics. For the ancient Greeks, the
most important ethical issue was one's moral character traits. There were virtues which they upheld and looked up to, such as courage, temperance and
modesty, and vices, like cowardice and foolhardiness. We call this "virtue ethics". Aristotle, the great student of Plato, was the most famous advocate for this
position, although some form of it can be seen in Homer, Socrates, Plato and other earlier thinkers.
The way Aristotle described it was that virtue was moderation. Cowardice is a vice where one is controlled by their fears. Foolhardiness is a vice where one
ignores or has no fear. The virtue of courage is somewhere in between these two. The courageous person, unlike the cowardly person, is not controlled by
their fear, but unlike the foolhardy person they do not just ignore their fear. Fear is an important part of life, and we should not pretend otherwise, however
we cannot let it control us. Therefore, courage is a kind of discipline in the face of fear which lies between those two extremes.
The example here is that Socrates would be showing cowardice by fleeing. For the Ancient Greeks, courage was a really important virtue, and could be
defined as taking serious risks for a good cause. Cowardice, on the other hand, was passively sitting back because of fear and allowing bad things to occur to
themselves and others. Just accepting one's unjust fate without a fight is just cowardice. To show courage then, Socrates should stand up to the authorities
in Athens and just flee.
The argument which is best categorized here is (7).
Once Crito has given these arguments, Socrates starts by prefacing his argument with a simple demand - all arguments he and Crito have previously made
are as valid now Socrates was about to die as they were before. Here, Socrates is arguing against hypocrisy, and for a kind of universal truth. It is very easy
for people to pontificate about justice when there is no risk to them, then change their mind once their own neck is on the line. Socrates is suggesting he
and Crito agree to not do that - whatever arguments they had in the past should only be abandoned if they come up with a better argument, and not just
because the two of them dislike the consequence of the argument now Socrates faces execution.
Journal Entry Assignment
The journal entry assignment will focus on evaluating three things - (1) your ability to identify philosophically significant
passages, (2) your ability to ask thoughtful questions about the content of these passages, and (3) your ability to
approach and attempt to answer these questions. It follows the same format as other weeks.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment