Crito believed that by helping Socrates to escape, he could go on to fulfill his personal obligations. Also, if Socrates does not follow the plan, many people would assume that his friends did not care about him enough to help him escape or that his friends are not willing to give their time or money in order to help him. Therefore, Crito goes on to argue that Socrates ought to escape from the prison. After listening to Crito’s arguments, Socrates dismisses them as irrelevant to a decision about what action is truly right. “Now you, Crito, are not going to die to-morrow-...-and therefore you are disinterested and not liable to be deceived by the circumstances in which you are placed.” -Socrates (Wolff 40).
His long time friend Crito proposes to Socrates a plan to escape from his death sentence in prison. Crito and Socrates argue the issue of escape with Socrates deciding on accepting his sentence. I feel that in light of his beliefs Socrates was ethically correct in refusing to escape from prison. It was important to Socrates that he have good reasons not only to motivate but also to justify his actions. Socrates was concerned that his actions not only be good, but be just and noble as well.
Socrates wants to avoid causing himself unnecessary suffering, although he is not afraid of death. He wants to finish his life the way he has lived it so far. Socrates, though dauntless as it may seem possible for someone in his situation, wants to avoid causing himself any unnecessary suffering. He showed this in both paragraphs 13 and 22. “Why should I offer to live in a prison, slaving away...” (13) is during a part where he is almost ranting about his pride and his punishment.
The reason why people want to talk to him is to find out what is just and unjust and finding if people have knowledge or not. Finally, Socrates says that he did not want to suck up to the court. He could have traditionally begged, cried, or mentioned family members to gain sympathy, but he did not. This would not be right for him because it would be embarrassing, this
Introduction Socrates argues in the Crito that he shouldn't escape his death sentence because it isn't just. Crito is distressed by Socrates reasoning and wishes to convince him to escape since Crito and friends can provide the ransom the warden demands. If not for himself, Socrates should escape for the sake of his friends, sons, and those who benefit from his teaching. Socrates and Crito's argument proceeds from this point. As an aside, I would like to note that, though I believe that a further objection could be made to Socrates conclusions in “The Philosopher's Defense”, due to space considerations, I didn't write the fourth section “Failure of the Philosopher's Defense”.
Moreover, that to live well, one has to live honorably. He feels that he has lived a good life and if he were to escape, then he wouldn’t be living honorably, thus not making life worth living. Crito gives him a few other reasons including; thinking about his family (who would raise his children? ), thinking about his followers (they don’t want him to die), and that the guilty verdict was wrong and unfair (few Athenians really wanted him put to death). Socrates then goes on to explain that his friends would raise his children, as he would wish.
we obviously know this to be true with Antigone and Socrates hints towards this same idea in the Apology when he says that he could have brought his family to the trial to show their grief but he would not want to put them through that for something that he has done. From this evidence that I have shown I strongly feel that Socrates would side with Antigone and he would have down the same if he was put in that situation.
This is because all have been done for a good cause and to encourage the Athenians to pursue a good life. The Apology gives an account of Socrates defense, while the Crito is another account of how Crito, one of Socrates friends went to jail to persuade him to escape. Crito among other of his friends feared that if Socrates was executed, the public would say that they did nothing to help their friend. Yet, Socrates does not concur with this way of doing things. He believes that no one should worry about what others think but as he said in the defense, he is ready to lose his life as long as he is pursuing what is good.
Then the two men had a discussion about what was right and wrong. Socrates gave very strong convincing statements to back up his side. The initial argument they both agreed on was doing unjust actions are not good and people should not act unjustly. Acting unjustly does harm to people’s soul and that is unacceptable for Socrates. It does not make sense for him to live with a soul that is corrupted.
This would eradicate the moral reputation that Socrates had built for himself throughout his life. The question he would have asked himself would have been, "What kind of example would I be setting if I dishonored my own teachings?" He saw his punishment as a contract between he and the government, and he firmly believed that agreements should not be broken. This is the same government that allowed him to live life as he chose, so why harm an institution that benefited him?