Plato Essay - Socrates; Crito ...
By Eric Shapiro - Spring 2012 - GO 103
Superficially, Plato’s two works, Apology of Socrates and Crito, seem to present vastly different perspectives on government and the rule of law. In the former, Plato emphasizes the ways in which his mentor’s philosophy clashes with authority. In Crito, on the other hand, Plato focuses on Socrates’ belief that one must respect the rule of law and put the good of the city before oneself. A close reading of both texts reveals that these seemingly contradictory messages are in fact reconcilable. Although Socrates sees it as his divine mission to expose the ignorance of men who claim to be wise, he nevertheless feels obligated to respect the misguided death sentence imposed on him by his fellow citizens. In doing so, he lives up to his own principles, respecting the rule of law while refusing to compromise his dignity or his message for the sake of self-preservation.
Above all, Socrates teaches people to think for themselves and to question established dogmas, threatening those in power by awakening his fellow citizens to a set of values that could encourage them to question authority. As he puts it, people come to see him “because they enjoy hearing men examined who suppose they are wise, but are not”[1] This sentiment, along with his expressed conviction that “the unexamined life is not worth living,”[2] poses an inherent threat to those in power. Furthermore, in claiming that virtue is innate and therefore cannot be taught, Socrates implicitly casts doubt on one of government’s primary functions, which is to create responsible (or, less charitably, docile) citizens by promoting values that are conducive to stability. In his speech in Apology, Socrates poses the question: “Are you not ashamed that you give your attention to acquiring as much money as possible, and similarly with reputation and honor, and give no attention or thought to truth and understanding and the perfection of your soul?”[3]
The pursuit of wealth, honor, and reputation are exactly the concerns that the government relies upon to maintain societal order, doing so through taxation and the promotion of norms that connect one’s honor with one’s position on the social hierarchy. In laying out an alternative set of norms that place the greatest value on wisdom and virtue rather than material wealth and/or reputation, Socrates poses a challenge to the prevailing wisdom enforced by the government.
In his Apology, Socrates makes some statements that, taken in isolation, make it sound as if he is against government. For example, he tells his audience: “I will obey the god rather than you; and as long as I breathe and am able to, I will certainly not stop philosophizing”[4] Furthermore, he repeatedly lambastes the government for promoting bad values and brainwashing the youth against him. After learning that he has been sentenced to death, Socrates makes it clear that he believes the charges leveled against him are false, and that if he is convicted it will owe to “the slander and virtue of many,”[5] which has condemned many innocent men to death.
These comments seem to beg the question of why he would submit to the punishment of such a fallible human institution when one’s true loyalty should be to the gods. However, several of Socrates other comments reveal that although he will never hesitate to criticize government for being corrupt and lacking virtue, he is not opposed to it on principle. On the contrary, he believes that it is necessary. In the Apology, Socrates expresses his belief in paying deference to a higher authority, which he specifies can be of human and not divine origin: “I do know that it is bad and shameful to do injustice and to disobey one’s better, whether god or human being.”[6] In less ambiguous terms, he insists, “the law must be obeyed.”[7] Thus, Socrates’ respect for the rule of law in general is apparent even as he excoriates the government and his fellow citizens for their false accusations against him.
In Crito, Plato elaborates on Socrates’ commitment to the rule of law, explaining that it is vital to the survival of the city. To this end, he poses the question: “Does it seem possible to you for a city to continue to exist, and not to be overturned, in which the judgments that are reached have no strength, but are rendered ineffective and are corrupted by private men?”[8] In other words, law in a particular instance, even when it is in error, undermines respect for rule the law in general, damaging the city in the process. Following this logic, Socrates determines that it would be wrong to defy the law by escaping from prison.
In a similar vein, Socrates claims (foreshadowing John Locke’s Social Contract) that by living in a city and partaking in all it has to offer, one implicitly agrees to obey the laws of that city: “Has it been agreed to by us and by you to do this, or to abide by whatever judgments the city reaches in trials?”[9] In a sense, one relinquishes absolute freedom to the greater good of the community. Socrates points out the benefits citizens reap from this arrangement, as well as the obedience they must provide in return: “Since you were born and nurtured, and educated, too, could you say, first, that you are not ours, both our offspring and slave, you yourselves as well as your forebears?”[10] The city provides nurturing, education and other necessities; in return the citizen must obey the law.
Following this logic, if Socrates were to flee his death sentence, he would be contradicting his own teachings, first and foremost among them: “even he who has been done injustice… must not do injustice in return… since one must in no way do injustice.”[11] According to Socrates, violating the rule of law, even if it is wrong in a particular case, would be meeting injustice with injustice. It would also contradict his assertion in the Apology (which is reiterated in Crito) that one should not disgrace oneself to avoid facing death, which is nothing to fear:
“For to fear death, men, is in fact nothing other than to seem wise… no one knows whether death does not even happen to be the greatest of all goods for the human being… I will never fear or flee the things about which I don’t know whether they even happen to be bad.”[12]
In other words, there is no reason to fear death because it is unknowable, and to do so is emblematic of one’s ignorance. If Socrates were to tarnish his virtue for the mere purpose of saving his own life, he would call into question two professed beliefs that lie at the center of his philosophy. Contradicting these beliefs would undermine his entire philosophy. In sacrificing his life according to the rule of law upon which society is based, Socrates proves the courage of his convictions and sets a positive example for the city.
Confronted with the prospect that Socrates will submit to execution rather than escape from prison, Crito accuses the philosopher of choosing the easy way out over the honorable one. Escape would be the most honorable course of action, Crito claims, because in allowing himself to be killed, Socrates would send the impression that his allies were too cheap and/or cowardly to intervene on their friend’s behalf. Reasonable as this argument might sound, it goes against Socrates’ assertion in the Apology that reputation is secondary to virtue. Crito wants to save Socrates in part because his reputation, particularly regarding his wealth, is on the line. However, Socrates is quite clear in the Apology about what he thinks of reputation: “those with the best reputations seemed to me nearly the most deficient… while others with more paltry reputations seemed to be men more fit.”[13]
One might then argue that Socrates should escape from prison out of loyalty to his friends and his children even if he does not concur with the argument for doing so. Alas, this too would contradict his teachings. Being a man who makes decisions based on reason, Socrates cannot in good conscience escape when he does not find the argument in favor of escape convincing. Therefore, if Socrates friends truly understand and respect his teachings, which claim one should make decisions based on sound argument and that one should place virtue before reputation, they will allow him to be executed without concern for how it makes them look.
Ultimately, it is Socrates’ respect for the rule of law that compels him to accept his execution. Wrong as the sentence might be, and as detrimentally as those who decided on it will be affected by his death, Socrates cannot bring himself to commit the great injustice of violating the social contract that holds the city together. Fleeing would be in violation of the principles Socrates espoused at his trial. Even worse, it would be in violation of his god, whom he believes to be the source of those principles. Socrates’ unwillingness to escape from jail is not a submission to authority, but rather an expression of his strong commitment to the rule of law and what he sees as divinely-revealed virtue.
[1] Thomas G. West, Plato, and Aristophanes. Four Texts on Socrates: Plato's Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito and Aristophanes's Clouds. Ithaca U.a.: Cornell Univ. Pr., 1984. Print. 86
[2] West, Four Texts on Socrates, 92
[3] West, Four Texts on Socrates, 81
[4] West, Four Texts on Socrates, 81
[5] West, Four Texts on Socrates, 78
[6] West, Four Texts on Socrates, 80
[7] West, Four Texts on Socrates, 65
[8] West, Four Texts on Socrates, 108
[9] West, Four Texts on Socrates, 108
[10] West, Four Texts on Socrates, 109
[11] West, Four Texts on Socrates, 107
[12] West, Four Texts on Socrates, 80
[13] West, Four Texts on Socrates, 70
Superficially, Plato’s two works, Apology of Socrates and Crito, seem to present vastly different perspectives on government and the rule of law. In the former, Plato emphasizes the ways in which his mentor’s philosophy clashes with authority. In Crito, on the other hand, Plato focuses on Socrates’ belief that one must respect the rule of law and put the good of the city before oneself. A close reading of both texts reveals that these seemingly contradictory messages are in fact reconcilable. Although Socrates sees it as his divine mission to expose the ignorance of men who claim to be wise, he nevertheless feels obligated to respect the misguided death sentence imposed on him by his fellow citizens. In doing so, he lives up to his own principles, respecting the rule of law while refusing to compromise his dignity or his message for the sake of self-preservation.
Above all, Socrates teaches people to think for themselves and to question established dogmas, threatening those in power by awakening his fellow citizens to a set of values that could encourage them to question authority. As he puts it, people come to see him “because they enjoy hearing men examined who suppose they are wise, but are not”[1] This sentiment, along with his expressed conviction that “the unexamined life is not worth living,”[2] poses an inherent threat to those in power. Furthermore, in claiming that virtue is innate and therefore cannot be taught, Socrates implicitly casts doubt on one of government’s primary functions, which is to create responsible (or, less charitably, docile) citizens by promoting values that are conducive to stability. In his speech in Apology, Socrates poses the question: “Are you not ashamed that you give your attention to acquiring as much money as possible, and similarly with reputation and honor, and give no attention or thought to truth and understanding and the perfection of your soul?”[3]
The pursuit of wealth, honor, and reputation are exactly the concerns that the government relies upon to maintain societal order, doing so through taxation and the promotion of norms that connect one’s honor with one’s position on the social hierarchy. In laying out an alternative set of norms that place the greatest value on wisdom and virtue rather than material wealth and/or reputation, Socrates poses a challenge to the prevailing wisdom enforced by the government.
In his Apology, Socrates makes some statements that, taken in isolation, make it sound as if he is against government. For example, he tells his audience: “I will obey the god rather than you; and as long as I breathe and am able to, I will certainly not stop philosophizing”[4] Furthermore, he repeatedly lambastes the government for promoting bad values and brainwashing the youth against him. After learning that he has been sentenced to death, Socrates makes it clear that he believes the charges leveled against him are false, and that if he is convicted it will owe to “the slander and virtue of many,”[5] which has condemned many innocent men to death.
These comments seem to beg the question of why he would submit to the punishment of such a fallible human institution when one’s true loyalty should be to the gods. However, several of Socrates other comments reveal that although he will never hesitate to criticize government for being corrupt and lacking virtue, he is not opposed to it on principle. On the contrary, he believes that it is necessary. In the Apology, Socrates expresses his belief in paying deference to a higher authority, which he specifies can be of human and not divine origin: “I do know that it is bad and shameful to do injustice and to disobey one’s better, whether god or human being.”[6] In less ambiguous terms, he insists, “the law must be obeyed.”[7] Thus, Socrates’ respect for the rule of law in general is apparent even as he excoriates the government and his fellow citizens for their false accusations against him.
In Crito, Plato elaborates on Socrates’ commitment to the rule of law, explaining that it is vital to the survival of the city. To this end, he poses the question: “Does it seem possible to you for a city to continue to exist, and not to be overturned, in which the judgments that are reached have no strength, but are rendered ineffective and are corrupted by private men?”[8] In other words, law in a particular instance, even when it is in error, undermines respect for rule the law in general, damaging the city in the process. Following this logic, Socrates determines that it would be wrong to defy the law by escaping from prison.
In a similar vein, Socrates claims (foreshadowing John Locke’s Social Contract) that by living in a city and partaking in all it has to offer, one implicitly agrees to obey the laws of that city: “Has it been agreed to by us and by you to do this, or to abide by whatever judgments the city reaches in trials?”[9] In a sense, one relinquishes absolute freedom to the greater good of the community. Socrates points out the benefits citizens reap from this arrangement, as well as the obedience they must provide in return: “Since you were born and nurtured, and educated, too, could you say, first, that you are not ours, both our offspring and slave, you yourselves as well as your forebears?”[10] The city provides nurturing, education and other necessities; in return the citizen must obey the law.
Following this logic, if Socrates were to flee his death sentence, he would be contradicting his own teachings, first and foremost among them: “even he who has been done injustice… must not do injustice in return… since one must in no way do injustice.”[11] According to Socrates, violating the rule of law, even if it is wrong in a particular case, would be meeting injustice with injustice. It would also contradict his assertion in the Apology (which is reiterated in Crito) that one should not disgrace oneself to avoid facing death, which is nothing to fear:
“For to fear death, men, is in fact nothing other than to seem wise… no one knows whether death does not even happen to be the greatest of all goods for the human being… I will never fear or flee the things about which I don’t know whether they even happen to be bad.”[12]
In other words, there is no reason to fear death because it is unknowable, and to do so is emblematic of one’s ignorance. If Socrates were to tarnish his virtue for the mere purpose of saving his own life, he would call into question two professed beliefs that lie at the center of his philosophy. Contradicting these beliefs would undermine his entire philosophy. In sacrificing his life according to the rule of law upon which society is based, Socrates proves the courage of his convictions and sets a positive example for the city.
Confronted with the prospect that Socrates will submit to execution rather than escape from prison, Crito accuses the philosopher of choosing the easy way out over the honorable one. Escape would be the most honorable course of action, Crito claims, because in allowing himself to be killed, Socrates would send the impression that his allies were too cheap and/or cowardly to intervene on their friend’s behalf. Reasonable as this argument might sound, it goes against Socrates’ assertion in the Apology that reputation is secondary to virtue. Crito wants to save Socrates in part because his reputation, particularly regarding his wealth, is on the line. However, Socrates is quite clear in the Apology about what he thinks of reputation: “those with the best reputations seemed to me nearly the most deficient… while others with more paltry reputations seemed to be men more fit.”[13]
One might then argue that Socrates should escape from prison out of loyalty to his friends and his children even if he does not concur with the argument for doing so. Alas, this too would contradict his teachings. Being a man who makes decisions based on reason, Socrates cannot in good conscience escape when he does not find the argument in favor of escape convincing. Therefore, if Socrates friends truly understand and respect his teachings, which claim one should make decisions based on sound argument and that one should place virtue before reputation, they will allow him to be executed without concern for how it makes them look.
Ultimately, it is Socrates’ respect for the rule of law that compels him to accept his execution. Wrong as the sentence might be, and as detrimentally as those who decided on it will be affected by his death, Socrates cannot bring himself to commit the great injustice of violating the social contract that holds the city together. Fleeing would be in violation of the principles Socrates espoused at his trial. Even worse, it would be in violation of his god, whom he believes to be the source of those principles. Socrates’ unwillingness to escape from jail is not a submission to authority, but rather an expression of his strong commitment to the rule of law and what he sees as divinely-revealed virtue.
[1] Thomas G. West, Plato, and Aristophanes. Four Texts on Socrates: Plato's Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito and Aristophanes's Clouds. Ithaca U.a.: Cornell Univ. Pr., 1984. Print. 86
[2] West, Four Texts on Socrates, 92
[3] West, Four Texts on Socrates, 81
[4] West, Four Texts on Socrates, 81
[5] West, Four Texts on Socrates, 78
[6] West, Four Texts on Socrates, 80
[7] West, Four Texts on Socrates, 65
[8] West, Four Texts on Socrates, 108
[9] West, Four Texts on Socrates, 108
[10] West, Four Texts on Socrates, 109
[11] West, Four Texts on Socrates, 107
[12] West, Four Texts on Socrates, 80
[13] West, Four Texts on Socrates, 70