Crito

Overview

Crito is one of Plato's earliest and most compelling dialogues, dramatizing a conversation between Socrates and his wealthy friend Crito in the days before Socrates's execution in 399 BCE. Crito has arrived with a plan for Socrates to escape from prison and go into exile, and he urges Socrates to accept the plan. The dialogue presents Socrates's reasons for refusing to escape, reasons that turn on the nature of justice, the authority of law, and the obligations of a citizen to the state that has shaped and sustained him.

The dialogue is a companion to the Apology, in which Socrates defends his way of life before the Athenian jury, and it completes the story of Socrates's trial and death. Where the Apology presents Socrates's defense of philosophy before the city, the Crito presents his defense of the city before the claims of philosophy. Together, the two dialogues raise the deepest questions about the relationship between the individual and the political community, and about the limits of both civic obligation and moral independence.

Key Ideas

The Argument from Persuasion or Obedience

The central argument of the Crito is presented through the personification of the Laws of Athens, who speak to Socrates as if they were a person. The Laws argue that Socrates has a duty to obey them because he has entered into an implied agreement with them. By choosing to remain in Athens as an adult, by enjoying the benefits of its laws, and by raising his family in the city, Socrates has consented to be bound by its legal order. The Laws claim that the relationship between citizen and city is analogous to that between child and parent or between slave and master: the citizen owes a debt of gratitude and obedience to the city that has made his life possible.

The Principle of Non-Retaliation

Socrates's refusal to escape is also grounded in the principle that one must never do wrong, even in response to wrong. The Laws argue that Socrates would be doing wrong if he escaped: he would be breaking the law, violating his agreement, and undermining the authority of the legal system. The fact that the Athenian jury has wronged him by condemning him unjustly does not license him to wrong the city in return. This principle of non-retaliation, which Socrates also articulates in the Apology and the Crito itself, is a cornerstone of Socratic moral philosophy.

The Implied Agreement

The argument from agreement is the most influential and controversial element of the Crito. The Laws claim that Socrates has consented to be bound by their authority, not by an explicit promise but by the tacit consent implied by his continued residence in Athens. Crito has offered no parallel argument: he urges Socrates to escape on the grounds that he will be abandoning his friends and his children, and that the world will think ill of his friends for not helping him escape. Socrates rejects these considerations as irrelevant to the moral question.

The Relationship to the Apology

The Crito is often read as a complement to the Apology. In the Apology, Socrates refuses to stop his philosophical activity even when the jury orders him to do so. In the Crito, he refuses to disobey the law even when the law has been unjustly applied to him. The two dialogues together present a complex picture of the relationship between the claims of conscience and the claims of law. Socrates is not a simple defender of obedience to law: he is a defender of the moral authority of law under conditions of democratic citizenship, and his arguments presuppose the possibility of a just legal order.

Legacy

The Crito has been one of the most influential texts in the Western tradition on the subject of civic obligation. Its arguments for obedience to law have been invoked by defenders of the rule of law and criticized by advocates of civil disobedience. The dialogue raises, but does not fully resolve, the question of whether there are limits to the duty of obedience, and of what those limits might be. The argument from tacit consent has been central to debates about the legitimacy of political authority, from Locke to Nozick.

The dialogue also raises deeper questions about the relationship between justice and the law. The Laws of Athens argue that Socrates owes them obedience, but they also acknowledge that they have been unjust in condemning him. The dialogue does not resolve the tension between the claims of the just individual and the claims of the just legal order. It leaves the reader with the question that Socrates himself posed: is it ever just to disobey the law, and if so, when? The questions raised in the Crito, about justice and obligation, remain as urgent as they were in ancient Athens.

Sources

1. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Plato: Ethics and Politics in The Republic and the Laws." Comprehensive survey of Plato's political and ethical thought.
2. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Socrates." Analysis of Socrates's life, trial, and philosophical legacy.