Socrates' Philosophy in His Dialogue with Crito

Socrates, the enigmatic philosopher who lived approximately two thousand years ago, was sentenced to death by Athenian authorities. His tragic death continues to perplex many people even to this day. Why would a guiltless man, full of wisdom, and who contributed much to Greek culture, dare to refuse an offer to escape from prison just a few days before his execution? His wealthy friend, Crito, gave him that open chance, but he declined it with much conviction. By modern standards (and to the uninitiated thinker of philosophy), that decision would have been viewed as foolish, not befitting the sense and reason of a great philosopher. And yet, Socrates was so guided by a strong inner judgment that even unto death, he chose to adhere to his own concepts of justice. Yes, Socrates believed that refusing to escape from prison and instead succumbing to death was the moral thing to do, and he had no regrets.

Crito’s reasons for Socrates’ escape were valid to any so-called practical man. He tried to persuade Socrates that if he dies, there would be no one left to feed his children. Moreover, Crito argued that if he fails to free Socrates from prison, he will lose his good reputation among his friends. Not only do people in Athens tolerate freeing convicted prisoners because of their influential and wealthy connections, but they expect it to happen as well. Crito asserts that the many can do great harm, and so their opinion still matters. This aspect of Crito’s argument was selfish, as he was trying to persuade Socrates to escape so that he (Crito) could save face among his friends.

But Socrates was a man who believed that he must be guided by reason and not be easily influenced by convenience, reputation and fear of death. He argued that death is much more preferable than exile, and that escaping from prison would be an unfair to the Athenian state. He believed that it is not right to recompense an injustice with another injustice, because this will all lead to more injustice and evil.

Socrates has a high disregard for public opinion especially when it comes into conflict with moral principles. In his argument, he alluded to an interesting example: A disciple in gymnastics, according to him, should not be wary of the praise and criticism of the people around him. Instead, the only opinion that truly matters to the gymnast is that of his trainer or physician, because that person is the only one who has power over the gymnast’s discipline. The gymnast shouldn’t fear the censure of the crowd, but instead worry only about improving himself and pleasing his trainer or mentor. In the same way, men who are guided by reason and justice should not worry about the praise or censure of the crowd. He must be guided by his own virtue and choose to do what is right, regardless of the pressure of popular opinion. In a way, he was attacking Crito’s thinking, because Crito was much more concerned with fatherly obligations, reputation, and fear of death itself. Socrates articulates that these concerns are for irrational men only, but should not occupy the thoughts of a reasonable man. In fact, he believes that old men like him should not fear death at all.

Moreover, Socrates states that he has a just agreement with the city of Athens and its Laws. He believes that the laws should not be overturned, changed or bypassed simply because his circumstances are in conflict with those laws. Foutz (1998) wrote about it this way: “Thus he has clearly shown that he acknowledged the agreement, which he cannot now break without dishonour to himself and danger to his friends”.

Socrates feels that he owes his life to Athens, its laws, and government. If he agrees to Crito’s plan to escape to Thessaly, it would be a direct defiance against Athens and its Laws. He cannot stand the idea of living in dishonour, as contrasted by dying with virtue and just conscience. Socrates cannot allow the Laws to consider him as an enemy forever, just because he decides to live but go against the law and order of the land. So, his final decision was to surrender himself to Athens’s verdict, and by doing so, he would be able to recompense injustice with justice, lawlessness with obedience, and cruelty with virtue. In short, he simply wanted to reward evil with good. Striking back at the city and its laws could save his life temporarily, but then he felt that he could no longer live decently and honourably after that. Death, on the other hand, will allow him to maintain his just agreement with Athens, reconcile the injustice done to him, and also ensure that his children will grow as citizens of an orderly state. (Socrates views Thessaly as a land of misrule, and he doesn’t want to deprive his posterity of Athenian citizenship).

From my point of view, Socrates presented a highly persuasive and correct argument, but he became prey to his own reason and philosophy. For example, as we mentioned earlier, he emphasized that an injustice shouldn’t be rewarded with another injustice, for it leads to more evil. He was referring to Athens’s unjust verdict against him, being an innocent man. The leaders of Athens obviously sentenced him to death for political reasons, and yet Socrates feels that it is ‘unjust’ to escape from prison because that would mean defying the laws of the state. Quite the contrary, my view is that it is far more unjust to let yourself get killed for crimes you have not committed. Being sentenced to death for your innocence is an injustice, but Socrates rewarded that deed with a more gruesome injustice by letting himself submit to the cruelty of unworthy death by drinking hemlock. If he knew he was innocent, then he shouldn’t have viewed himself as someone who deserves punishment. Either Socrates was tired of life or he simply wanted to do something more heroic than arguing daily on the streets of the Agora.

Different philosophical schools of thought have varying views about Socrates’ death. For instance, Libertarians would view Socrates’ death as morally permissible suicide. Suicide, according to them, does not violate moral law and that “all individuals enjoy a right to suicide” (Cholbi, 2004). Socrates gained even more by choosing death because he did it for the sake of justice and morality. No one can interfere with his choice, even Crito, because the right to choose death is a “right of non-interference” (Cholbi, 2004).

Compatibilist thinkers, meanwhile, would view Socrates’ death as an act of free will, but only as a result of a long, unbroken chain of past events. Compatibilism argues that free will and determinism are compatible with each other. However, a man’s moral behaviour and decisions in life have already been predetermined long ago by some unknown chain of occurrences. In this case, free will becomes an illusion (Deem, 2008). If we apply this concept to the death of Socrates, his death would be seen as a mere result of determinism. In that sense, we can say that he was a victim to an illusion of free will.