Analyzing Socrates Arguments On The Crito

Philosophy 100
Paper One
January 30, 2014
Arguments on the Crito
In the Crito, Plato introduces several arguments that Socrates makes on whether or not it would be just for him to escape from prison when the Athenians have not acquitted him. Socrates begins by arguing that one must never do wrong. One of the most compelling arguments that he goes on to make is that doing harm to someone is wrong and therefore one must never engage in retaliatory harm. Under certain circumstances, such as self-defense, retaliatory harm is necessary. Socrates also argues that whenever you violate an agreement, you harm the person you made the agreement with. Therefore, escaping is wrong. In this paper, I shall argue that although the arguments support
each other and the final conclusion, I do not agree with the argument that Socrates makes about one never doing retaliatory harm.
In the Crito, Plato demonstrates Socrates arguments on whether or not it would be just to escape from prison even though the charges were unjust. Socrates was first sentenced to court on the following political charges: teaching, making the weaker arguments the stronger, and studying the heaven and the earth (Plato page 28:19b). Later on in the trial, Socrates is then charged with corrupting the cities youth and believing in atheism (23d). At the end of the trial, Socrates is found guilty and is sentenced to prison and death. While in prison, Socrates must decide if escaping would be just or unjust. Through the view of Plato, we are given several premises from Socrates that will then lead up to later arguments; one must never do harm, to harm someone is to do wrong, and escaping violates a just agreement. Through these premises, Socrates is able to make a reasonable argument as to why he ought not to escape from prison.
In the Crito, Plato begins by introducing Socrates initial claim that starts his argument. He explains that, “one must never in any way do wrong willingly” (49a). If one is never to do wrong willingly, than it is safe to conclude that one must never do wrong for wrong. When someone is wronged, it is never right to inflict wrong in return. For example, in the Crito, Socrates talks about how it was wrong that he was convicted on charges that were not true. Even though he was convicted on false charges and it was wrong of the people to convict him, Socrates knows that returning wrong for wrong would be wrong. Therefore, Socrates cannot escape from prison even though he knows he was wrongly charged because one cannot do wrong in return for wrong. Socrates continues his argument with doing wrong, being correlated to harm.
The second claim that Socrates makes is that, to harm someone is to do wrong. Injuring people or harming them, is no different then doing wrong (49b). Therefore, Socrates comes to a second argument that one must never harm anyone. An example of this would be punching someone just because you felt like it. If injury is no different then doing wrong, that would mean punching someone is wrong. Therefore, one must never punch anyone else. The second argument that Socrates makes is therefore correct and also follows the previous argument. Socrates continues on to explain that doing harm in return for being harmed is wrong.
Plato introduces the third claim that Socrates makes: if injuring is no different than doing wrong, and harming people is wrong, then there shall be no retaliatory harm. This is where I begin to disagree. Plato clearly states that Socrates is arguing that it is not right for someone to inflict an injury in return for being injured (49b). So therefore, one must never engage in retaliatory harm. An example of this from the text would be that even though being convicted for false charges harmed Socrates, it would be wrong to engage in retaliatory harm and escape from prison. Unfortunately, there is a contradiction to that argument. Another example would be someone breaking into your house and you catching them in action. They come near you and they start attacking you to try and knock you out. According to Plato’s views about Socrates argument, it would be wrong to defend yourself by punching them because one must never inflict harm in return for being harmed. Based on my opinion, I believe this argument is false. Socrates continues on to correlate violating just agreements with harming others.
Plato continues on with Socrates fourth claim that when one comes to an agreement with someone, they should fulfill the agreement (49b). Violating an agreement is similar to harm. Whenever you violate a just agreement, you harm the person you made the agreement with. So therefore, one must never break a just agreement. To better understand this, I will share an example. In the text, Socrates talks about how he has lived in this city his whole life. For 70 years, he has had an opportunity to leave this city if he felt like they couldn’t accommodate him there. Instead, he chose to stay and fulfill his duties as a citizen. It is the city in which birthed him, educated him, and housed him (49d). Socrates benefitted from the city, remained within the city, and entered a sort of contract. A contract is like an agreement. So if Socrates were to leave, then he would be breaking an agreement with the city. Violating an agreement means harming someone. Therefore, one should never break a just agreement. Indeed, what Socrates is arguing is correct. He then goes on to identify how violating a just agreement and escaping is wrong.
Plato introduces Socrates final claim: escaping violates a just agreement (51a). Socrates has basically signed a contract by remaining within the city, so if he escapes from the city, then he is violating his just agreement with them. Therefore, escaping is wrong. If Socrates were to escape, then he would violate an agreement with the city. The city would then be harmed. Doing harm is considered wrong and no one should ever willingly do wrong. Therefore, after several arguments, Socrates comes to a conclusion that he ought not to escape from the city, for it would be wrong (54c).
Although Plato’s views of Socrates’ arguments support the final conclusion, I do not agree with the argument that ‘one should never engage in retaliatory harm’.
My view of this argument is that Socrates is basically stating that self-defense is wrong. Socrates is stating that if you are harmed, you cannot harm in return. I believe this statement is false. If you are being attacked and are in danger of being hurt or even possibly killed, then who is to say that defending yourself is wrong? In my opinion, this statement is horribly written and doesn’t take into account the intentional harm that people bring upon others. Instead, this statement assumes that all people that do harm, do it unintentionally and its all just an accident, so therefore, one should not inflict harm in return for being
harmed.
Overall, I agree with Socrates arguments about not escaping from the city.
The only argument that I would change or modify would be the argument about retaliatory harm. Perhaps instead of saying that one should never engage in retaliatory harm, it could say that one should never harm someone else, if the harm was unintentional. Socrates might disagree with my opinion and say that there is no harm that is unintentional and that his statement about retaliatory harm is correct. In some lights, Socrates statement is correct. For example, when someone accidentally trips you while going down the stairs, you shouldn’t trip them in return. It clearly was an accident, so Socrates’ statement does follow this example. In contrast, not all harm is unintentional. An important example that proves that all harm is not unintentional is the example of serial killers. Obviously, none of their murders were an accident. They planned all of their murders and it didn’t just accidentally
happen.
Even though in some ways the statement could be correct, overall, the statement is false. Not all harm is unintentional and therefore, people should be able to protect themselves when they need to. If I could modify the statement, I would say to change it to ‘doing no retaliatory harm if the harm initially done was unintentional.’ The problem with that though, is that you never know if it was intentional or unintentional. People can be dishonest and say it unintentional, when in reality, it might have been intentional. That is also a place where uncertainty is found.
In conclusion, I have justified the premises and arguments given from the view of Plato by Socrates on why he ought not to escape from the city. I have argued that although all of the arguments made do support the final conclusion, the argument about retaliatory harm does not take into consideration the intentional harm that one brings to others. Hence, one of the most significant arguments as to why he ought not to escape fails. Therefore, the argument ultimately fails.

Works Cited
Cahn, Steven M. "Crito." Classics of Western Philosophy. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2012. 40-46. Print.