Socrate's Escape

In this paper I will examine Socrates’ arguments supporting his refusal to escape his own execution in the Crito and ultimately prove that Socrates’ decision is not justifiable because of holes in the arguments regarding the unimportance of the majority’s opinion, importance of never doing wrong, and respect for the state. The scene opens with Socrates’ friend Crito visiting Socrates in his cell soon after his conviction. Crito desperately wants Socrates to escape, and presents several reasons why he should go against the state and avoid his death sentence. As a philosopher, Socrates examines whether it would indeed be morally just for him to escape.

In his jail cell, Crito assumes that Socrates is worried about how much money it would take to complete his escape, and assures him that strangers and friends have already offered to assist him with this obstacle. It seems that Crito’s main concern is that people will not believe that Socrates refused the offer to escape, and this will damage Crito’s reputation as well as the rest of Socrates’ friends'. People will assume that Crito was too cheap or did not care enough to help his friend, and for that he will be disrespected by what he calls the “majority” of the citizens.

Crito has a true fear of the vast power of the majority, as it can do bad things to individuals, as shown by Socrates’ death sentence. Socrates disagrees with Crito’s idea and shows that he does not have this fear of the majority. He argues that the majority can’t make someone wise or foolish, and instead they carry out actions, like his death sentence, rather arbitrarily. He adds that in many circumstances the majority opinion is much less qualified or valid than that of an expert in the field. He uses ...

... middle of paper ...

...to get away with this wrongdoing. Yes, the city has been kind to him for many years, but that does not excuse its behavior. Socrates’ premises are entirely valid and sound by definition, but this is when the onlooker is placing the city on a high pedestal. Without the sacredness of the city, which I would argue is unimportant, the rest of the argument falls apart because the city has committed injustice, and just like a corrupted life is not worth living, a corrupted city is not worth admiring.

While many of Socrates arguments seem very logical, I have explored some of the exceptions to Socrates principles, which prove that it is not necessarily wrong for him to escape from the city. I would argue that both sides have committed wrongdoing, and because of this, it is completely acceptable for Socrates to escape from the city that used to enrich his upbringing.