Ought Socrates escape from Prison? (Crito 46b-50a)

PL 101: Introduction to Philosophy

Crito’s arguments for escape• Argument from majority opinion• Argument from life as most important value

• Argument from consequences (abandonment of children)

Argument from majority opinion

“Many people, who don’t know you or me well, will think that I didn’t care about you, since I could have saved you if I’d been willing to spend the money. And indeed, what reputation could be more shameful than being thought to value money more than friends? For the majority of people won’t believe that it was you yourself who refused to leave this place.” (Crito 44bc)

Critique of majority opinion (Crito 46e-48a)

1. One should take some people’s opinions seriously, but not others.

2. One should value good opinions, but not bad ones.

3. Good opinions are those of wise people and bad opinions are those of unwise people.

Problem: who has wise opinions?1. In physical training of the body, one should

follow the opinion of an expert (i.e., a trainer or doctor) rather than the majority opinion.

2. Neglecting the opinion of a “body expert” leads to bad effects to the body.

3. In cases of “just and unjust things, shameful and fine ones, good and bad ones,” (47cd) it is the opinion of the one person—the one who understands these things—that one should follow, rather than the majority opinion.

4. Neglecting the opinion of one who understands justice and injustice leads to bad effects to the “soul.”

Conclusion: when is life worth living?

1. Our lives are not worth living with a wretched, seriously damaged body.

2. Our lives are not worth living with a maimed, seriously damaged soul.

3. Therefore, one should not care about the majority opinion, but “think instead of what the person who understands just and unjust things will say.” (48a)

Questions about the “majority” argument

1. Are there experts of soul like there are experts of the body?

2. Does injustice affect the soul in the same way that bad diet or unhealthy life-style affects the body?

3. Is life not worth living with either a damaged body or damaged soul?

4. Even if majority opinion is a poor basis for making decisions, isn’t one’s own opinion—an autonomous opinion—better than an expert’s opinion?

Argument about justice, life, and children

“I think that what you’re doing isn’t just, (1) throwing away your life, when you could save it, and hastening the very sort of fate for yourself that your enemies would hasten—and indeed have hastened—in their wish to destroy you. What’s more (2) I think you’re also betraying those sons of yours by going away and deserting them when you could bring them up and educate them.” (Crito 45cd)

Critique of life/consequences arguments (Crito 48bd)

1. The most important thing isn’t living, but living well.

2. Living well, living a fine life, and living justly are the same things.

3. Therefore, the only question is whether one acts justly if one pays money to those who would break one out of prison.

4. Therefore, secondary consequences—for example, whether one’s action leaves one’s children fatherless—are irrelevant to the question of whether one’s action is just.

Argument from justice (Crito 49a-50a)1. One should never do injustice or do wrong

intentionally under any circumstances.

2. It is never right to do injustice or retaliate with bad treatment when one has been treated badly.

3. One should never return an injustice for an injustice.

4. One should always keep one’s agreements, as long as the agreements are just.

5. Therefore, is breaking out of jail without having persuaded the city breaking one’s agreements?

Just agreements (Crito 50c-53d)Is the agreement between the Laws of Athens and Socrates just?1. One individual is not equal to the community.

2. The agreement offers one the opportunity to persuade, but requires obedience if the city is unpersuaded.

3. “Exit” is a part of the agreement, although Socrates never took that option.

4. Remaining in a city implies tacit agreement with its laws.

5. Breaking the agreement will have negative consequences for both Socrates and his friends (including Crito).

Questions about the justice arguments

1. Is living well the same thing as living justly?

2. Is it possible to distinguish an act from its secondary or unintended consequences?

3. Why is intentional justice always wrong? Are there any distinctions between doing wrong, doing injustice, and harming someone?

4. What’s wrong with returning an injustice for an injustice?

And one final question:

Why is Crito—clearly a close friend of Socrates—so clueless about Socratic principles?

Examples:• Lets Socrates sleep instead of waking him up and

conversing

• Proposes paying off his guard and committing injustice

• Concerned with majority opinion rather than wisdom

• Unable to answer a rather basic question of applying the principle of justice to the case of Socrates breaking out of prison