Evaluating Socrates

Owing the Government Our Obedience: Socrates’ defense for Not Doing Injustice When Injustice is Done to You
In the dialogue of “Crito” by Plato, a person by the name of Crito has come to try and persuade Socrates to escape from jail as he feels he is being wrongfully accused. Socrates basically asks Crito to plead his case and if he can come up with enough good reasons then Socrates will escape, if not he will stay. As Crito begins attempting to persuade him, Socrates ends up stating two main premises that are reasons why he should not escape. His first main premise is that Socrates believes that he owes the government his obedience. The second main premise is that he believes that if he escapes there will be too many negative effects on him, his friends and his family. To explain his main premises further, Socrates uses logos, a little bit of pathos and ethos. The logos of his argument is the strongest of the three. Socrates presents lots of evidence proving his two main premises. The pathos in this dialogue is hard to notice at first but becomes clear towards the end of the dialogue when Crito seems robot like, just agreeing with everything Socrates is saying. The ethos part of the dialogue really establishes Socrates’ credibility as Crito is unable to change his mind and Socrates shows a lot of character with his reasons and explanations. However, some of the things Socrates says don’t have any relevance at all to his main claims.
The first reason Socrates gives for not escaping jail is that he owes the government his obedience. He starts this argument using scenarios toward Crito about things that the government will say to him if he tries to do as Crito wishes. Socrates then goes on to say that they will question his obedience to the government by saying things like “In the first place did we not bring you into existence?” in other words he is saying why would he try and destroy them, or go against them and the state when they are the reason he was brought into this world and the reason why he has the education, knowledge and basically everything that he does. He also says “And because we think right to destroy you, do you think that you have any right to destroy us in return..” in other words Socrates’s point here is do two wrongs make a right? He also mentions that he has only once ever left his city as he says that one of their responses will be “there is clear proof Socrates that we and the city were not displeasing to you.” He describes himself as of all the Athenians “to be the cities constant resident “ as he has never left the city unless it was for military service. Another explanation he gives it that he never traveled anywhere else as others did, he never took an interest in getting to know other states and laws and above all he had his children there which clearly in his opinion shows that that’s “proof of his satisfaction” of the state. Then Socrates poses the question, if they’re right in saying “you agreed to be governed according to us in deed” stating how shall he answer that? He basically goes on saying that he has had 70 years to think about the laws and if he thought they were unfair or unjust then he could have just left Athens and went somewhere else, that why now is it that all of a sudden he wants to leave? He believes that he will be making himself “look ridiculous” if he escapes. Socrates is basically not greedy for more life because he knows that the short res he has left isn’t worth more than all he has had in the years before. Escaping in his eyes would be like giving up everything he worked for. The second reason Socrates gives for not escaping jail is that if he escapes there will be too many negative effects on him, his friends, and his family. He says that if he proceeds as Crito is asking him to, that his friends will be “driven into exile, deprived of citizenship, or lose their property..” In other words if Socrates proceeds his actions it will not only effect his life, it will also affect his friends and family as they will be forced to live a different life of which Socrates didn’t live. Then Socrates goes on talking about what will happen to himself saying that if he goes to another city, one of which is well governed he will “come to them as an enemy” and the government will be against him. Socrates says that “all patriotic citizens will cast an evil eye upon you as a subverter of the laws..” in other words in escaping to somewhere else, Socrates will not have the approval of the people but instead have the disapproval of them and will be known as someone who supports going against the laws. So when going somewhere else might seem ideal it really isn’t ideal. In other words how should someone who can’t follow the laws elsewhere be expected to follow the laws somewhere new? This is what he believes the people will think of him. He also says that someone who doesn’t follow the laws or is a “corrupter of the laws” is more likely to be someone who is a “corrupter of the youth.” So if he proceeds in escaping he will basically just be making himself look even worse than he already does and like it’s more likely he is guilty of the charges brought against him. So at this point Socrates is explaining that if he leaves as a result of trying to retaliate he will inevitably be making himself look like he is guilty of the charges brought against him. The dialogue then goes on and Socrates questions that if he escapes will he bring up and educate his children and “deny them of Athenian citizenship?” At this point his is saying that in escaping he will not be allowing his children the opportunity he has had or not giving them an equal as a chance that he had. When evaluating the logos in Socrates’s first premise I feel that he is not really being effective with the reasons he is giving. I believe this for many reasons. The first reason Socrates gives is that they government are the ones who brought him into existence and the reason for basically everything he has. In my opinion this reason is party true but not one hundred percent true. Socrates was born and given most the stuff he has but that’s not to say that he couldn’t gain all the stuff he has and received the education he has elsewhere. I could see the point he is trying to make here when considering the fact that he basically owes them. They did him a favor and now he owes them but to me that’s not really relevant. The reason why I feel like this isn’t relevant is because I honestly believe that nobody owes the government anything. Time after time people have given the government their obedience and they have been screwed over. Also when really thinking about it in the United States the government does a lot of things that we the people don’t know about and they hide and keep things from us. So this makes me feel like why do we owe them our obedience if they are not honest with us and keep things from us. Another reason is that laws are constantly changing. Some laws that were established and enacted years ago people today might think was crazy. For example the fugitive slave act of 1850 states that if any slave were to be found they are to be returned back to their master. With this being said any free person who tires to save a slave would be prosecuted for violation of the fugitive slave act. This brings me to my next point. Most the laws that the government makes all comes down to morality. Do we think that this law is morally right? Everybody will almost always have different views of this. So I think its safe to say that laws and the ways in which governing is done is not always correct. It might be the best we have but that’s not to say that its perfect. This is why I feel nobody owes the government their obedience because to everybody the government has different effects on some people’s lives. Another reason Socrates gives is the fact that he has never left Athens as other did therefore that’s “proof of his satisfaction” of the city. This honestly isn’t very relevant to what he is saying because what does not leaving have to do with owing his government his obedience. There is no connection to this what so ever. The next thing he talks about was when he agreed to follow the rules and the way in which they are governed. This reason does have relevance because as citizens are supposed to follow a law when given basically a second change and formally agreeing to follow the laws and not doing so wouldn’t be the right thing to do. That would be like if someone was about to be prosecuted, and was given a second chance if they agreed to follow the laws, not doing so would just be ridiculous. The logos in premise two is a whole lot better than the logos in premise one. It seems to have more truth and relevance. A lot of Socrates’ reasons are far more relevant than the ones in premise one. I feel that it has more truth because starting off Socrates says, that in escaping there will be too many negative effects on him, his friends and family. Throughout the rest of the dialogue Socrates pleads his case with really good examples of what will happen if he escapes and they are relevant explanations to why he shouldn’t escape. He says that one, his family and friends will be “driven into exile” and “deprived citizenship.” I could easily see how this could be a reason not to act as Critos wishes because Socrates’ logic is why put my friends and family through hell when they haven’t done anything to deserve it. Socrates got his education in Athens so why would he want to deprive his children of this same equal opportunity and basically ruin their whole life. Then Socrates says that if he goes somewhere else he will “come to them as an enemy.” This statement we will never know for sure if true as there is no way to prove this but the logic of it seems relevant though because of the fact that he would in fact come to them as an enemy because of the fact that he didn’t follow the laws in Athens. So in saying all the things he says about this it is clear that in leaving according to Socrates’ logic he will not be able to “start new” but instead be causing more damage and harm than good. He also has a good point that seems to be true when he says “one who is a corrupter of laws is more likely to be a corrupter of the youth.” This is true and also relevant because in escaping he’s basically saying two wrongs make a right so it will just make him look as if he is actually guilty of the charges. Evaluating the pathos of this dialogue was really tough. At first it seems as though Socrates doesn’t really use any type of pathos but when reviewing the information and really thinking about it I have come to the conclusion the he does indeed use pathos. After really looking into this it is actually pretty evident that he uses pathos. Evaluating his use of pathos was really tricky because of the fact that he seems very calm, and factual throughout the dialogue basically speaking in the same tone. Socrates seems from the beginning of the dialogue to the end to not have changed his mind. The use of pathos comes in when evaluating what he is saying to Crito and the effect that it has on him and Socrates use of trying to persuade Crito. In the beginning Crito seems to have a lot to say but near the end it seems as if he has just agreeing with everything Socrates is saying and has said. Socrates sort of has the attitude of “I’m always going to be right” when speaking to Crito that of which parents have on their children that by the end of the dialogue Crito just does not know what to say and sort of gives in as him probably knows he will not be able to persuade Socrates. Socrates is smart though in saying what he says. He uses a lot of good examples such as ones that appeal to his friends and family. That premise is probably the strongest one in terms of pathos because everyone tends to get some type of emotional appeal when it comes to family especially. Another use of pathos was when he says the he has “had seventy years to think about the laws.” This is because as the audience and as Crtito Socrates is sort of telling us that he is already pretty old and doesn’t have that much life left. This type of pathos just get to us. Socrates’ use of ethos in the dialogue really establishes his creditability. To begin, the fact that Socrates doesn’t want to do as Crito wishes because of the fact that he feels he owes his government his obedience along with the reasons he gives really show true character in him. Most people don’ feel as strongly about their government as him. Also the fact that Socrates believes that two wrongs don’t make a right show a lot about his character especially when most people who were in his situation would probably do the opposite and escape. He really establishes trustworthiness towards Crito as he really just makes himself look like a good guy. His tone toward Crito is slightly respectful and also kind of disrespectful because Socrates really just talks to Crito until basically Crito gives up and no longer has anything to say. Overall throughout the dialogue Socrates is pretty effective with what he says and he reasons for why he shouldn’t escape. His use of logos, pathos and ethos are also effective as well. In this argument his use of pathos though seemed to turn the dialogue into a dictatorship because Socrates uses so many examples that it leaves Crito not knowing what to say and so he just ends up agreeing with Socrates. Its almost like Crito was overall weak in his plead to Socrates which makes Socrates look right in the decision he is making. Crito really can’t dispute anything Socrates is saying and I feel like he should have been a little more aggressive throughout the conversation. He starts off this way a little bit better but from the beginning you can tell Socrates already knows what he think the right thing to do is and near the end Crito is nearly not effective at all. Crito should have fought back a little bit better than he already did instead of just turning into a robot near the end. On Socrates’s side I can see his logic in the fact that he only has a little bit of life left but I would want to do everything just to buy a little more time especially if I knew I was being wrongfully accused.