The Crito (Ancient Greek: Κρίτων, IPA [kriːtɔːn]; in English usually [ˈkɹiːtɘʊː] [KREE-to]) is a short but important dialogue by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato. It is a conversation between Socrates and his wealthy friend Crito regarding justice (dikē), injustice (adikia), and the appropriate response to injustice. Socrates thinks that injustice may not be answered with injustice, and refuses Crito's offer to finance his escape from prison. This dialogue contains an ancient statement of the social contract theory of government.
Introduction
The dialogue begins with Socrates waking up to the presence of Crito in his prison cell. When Socrates expresses surprise that the guard has let him in at such an early hour, Crito informs Socrates that he knows the guard well and has done him a certain benefaction.
Crito has bad news for Socrates. He tells him that there are eyewitness reports that the ship has come in from Delos, and that tomorrow Socrates will be executed. Socrates rebuffs the report, saying he has had a dream - a vision of a woman in a white cloak telling him that on the third day hence he will go to Phthia, which is a reference to Achilles' threat in the Iliad that he—the mightiest of Greek warriors—might just leave for his home in "fertile" Phthia and be there in "just three days" if the Greeks fail to show him due respect. Socrates says that the meaning of this is perfectly clear - it will be three days until he dies.
Crito does not allow Socrates to elaborate the meaning of the dream, but only calls him daimonic; Crito has arrived at this early hour to save Socrates from death. Crito tells Socrates that if he follows through with the execution, people will assume that Crito and friends were too cheap to finance an escape. Crito's worries suggest that buying one's way out of prison was so routine that people not only didn't frown on it, but even expected it.
More preludes
Socrates refuses Crito's initial offer to pay off potential snitches, and Crito protests that the informers ("sychophants") are cheaply bought. He adds that if Socrates is afraid of depleting Crito's account, there are foreigners (xenoi), Simmias and Cebes, who have come to town with money.
Crito then presents the moral view of the common man; a father has an obligation to nurture and educate his children, and should avoid orphaning them if at all possible. He tells Socrates that if his sons do not meet with the usual fate of orphans, it will be no thanks to him. Crito does not offer to see personally to the children's care, however. Crito adds that the trial should never have taken place and might have been managed differently. He says that the failure to escape will be a ridiculous climax to the whole affair, and caused by shameful cowardice of Socrates' friends (45d,e).
Socrates tells Crito that he is one of those people who must be guided by reason. He expresses contempt for the opinions of the masses of mankind who think irrationally and act randomly. Socrates says that the only person whose opinion is of value is the one who understands justice (47c,d). Money, reputation and feeding children are values of thoughtless men (48c). Socrates then invites Crito to consider the definition of justice, and whether it is ever right to do wrong intentionally.
The argument by analogy
Socrates takes the position that requiting injustice by retaliation or warding off evil by evil is always wrong, and is just as wrong as committing injustice in the first place. Socrates tells Crito that this opinion—that it is wrong not to resist evil—never has been, and never will be held by the vast majority of mankind. He thinks it is an important moral yardstick, adding that people who do not agree on this point have no common ground and must necessarily despise (kataphronein) each other. He says that this premise will be taken as true for the purpose of their discussion (49d).
Crito says he agrees with Socrates, that warding off evil by evil is as wrong as injustice (adikia), but in fact, neither seems to trouble him. Crito has no more qualms about bribing a friend's way out of prison than he had bribing his own way in for a morning visit. Neither man seems to notice that, according to Socrates, they should not even be friends because they are so far apart morally.
Socrates' claim that "resisting evil by any means other than persuasion is evil" is an ancient statement of moral pacifism. Socrates rests its logical defense entirely upon an analogy. He says that a citizen stands in relation to the state as the child does to the parent, as the slave does to his master. He says that the state has brought him into the world (by regulating marriage), nurtured and educated him. Socrates says that he is the offspring ("ek-gonos") and slave ("doulos") of the state and has no right to "destroy" the state by failing to obey it (50e) after it has been so beneficent to him.
Summary of Crito's arguments for escape
- Choosing execution would jeopardize the good reputation of Socrates' companions. If Socrates is executed, Crito will appear, to the public eye, to honor money before companions. Crito considers this reputation to be shameful and damaging, although it is created by those that are poorly acquainted with Crito and Socrates. However, one should respect the opinions of the many because they can bring about great evils.
- Socrates should not concern himself with the risks others are taking to devise his escape.
- Socrates should not concern himself with the amount of money adequate for his escape; there are others staying in Athens who have prepared enough money for the very purpose.
- Socrates has support in other cities, including Thessaly, and to be exiled would not be entirely negative.
- He would be unjustly joining the efforts of his enemies against him. He is choosing the "easiest path" as opposed to the courageous, honorable, and virtuous path, which Crito feels is to flee from certain, unjust death.
- Socrates would be behaving unjustly by leaving his parental obligations unfulfilled.
- Socrates would be acting cowardly if he weren't to resist such injustices (Implying that the court decision and Socrates' subsequent execution are unjust).
Socrates' responses
- Public opinion is of no importance to Socrates' decision; the majority's ignorance does not allow them to have true choice. Therefore, the public opinion holds no value to one who strives for truth and justice.
- The essential concern is whether or not escaping imprisonment is just.
- One should never commit injustices as injustice leads to evil.
- Men, especially those as old as Socrates, should not fear death.
The Laws' arguments
- The Laws are more honorable than one's parents, for they, too, beget, educate, and nurture their citizens. Just as one respects the decisions of their parents, one should respect the decisions of the law to an even greater extent. There is confusion as to whether respect is due to the law or due to the fatherland.
- Socrates tactily agreed to obey the law by remaining in Athens after having reached maturity, witnessing the structure of the law and how it functions, and raising children of his own in Athens.
- Socrates would be seen as a corrupting force wherever his presence was known.
- If one has the ability to choose whether to obey a law, then he is destroying the power of the law. Destroying law is unjust, for men require a community, and a community requires law.
- It would put Socrates in a precarious position in the afterlife.
See also
Further reading
- Allen, R.E. (1980). Socrates and Legal Obligation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
- Brickhouse, Thomas C.; Smith, Nicholas D. (2002). The Trial and Execution of Socrates: Sources and Controversies. New York: Oxford University.
- Colaiaco, James A. (2001). Socrates Against Athens. New York: Routledge.
- Kamtekar, ed., Rachana (2005). Plato's Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
- Kraut, Richard (1984). Socrates and the State. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University.
- McNeal, Richard A. (1992). Law and Rhetoric in the Crito. New York: Peter Lang.
- Stokes, Michael C. (2005). Dialectic in Action: An Examination of Plato's Crito. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales.
- Stone, I.F. (1988). The Trial of Socrates. New York: Little, Brown.
- Weiss, Roslyn (1998). Socrates Dissatisfied: An Analysis of Plato's Crito. New York: Oxford University.
- Woozley, A.D. (1979). Law and Obedience: The Arguments of Plato's Crito. London: Duckworth.
External links