Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Mar 29, 2014 13:16:34 GMT 5.5
Title: CRITO
Author: Plato
Time of writing: 360 BC
Translator: Benjamin Jowett
Persons of the Dialogue: SOCRATES, CRITO
Scene: The Prison of Socrates
SOCRATES: WHY have you come at this hour, Crito? it must be quite early.
CRITO: Yes, certainly.
SOCRATES: What is the exact time?
CRITO: The dawn is breaking.
SOCRATES: I wonder the keeper of the prison would let you in.
CRITO: He knows me because I often come, Socrates; moreover. I have done him a kindness.
SOCRATES: And are you only just come?
CRITO: No, I came some time ago.
Note: It was not yet dawn. Crito had entered prison where Socrates, sentenced to death, had been waiting for his execution. Crito visited Socrates frequently and the prison guard knew him. In fact he and some other friends of Socrates were arranging some money to bribe some authorities including the guard, to let Socrates out and escape execution and flee to another place. It was perhaps as part of this arrangement that the guard allowed Crito in.
CRITO: Why, indeed, Socrates, I myself would rather not have all this sleeplessness and sorrow. But I have been wondering at your peaceful slumbers, and that was the reason why I did not awaken you, because I wanted you to be out of pain. I have always thought you happy in the calmness of your temperament; but never did I see the like of the easy, cheerful way in which you bear this calamity.
SOCRATES: Why, Crito, when a man has reached my age he ought not to be repining at the prospect of death.
CRITO: And yet other old men find themselves in similar misfortunes, and age does not prevent them from repining.
Note: When Crito entered the cell he found Socrates asleep. He wondered how Socrates could sleep so peacefully when he had been sentenced to death and he would be executed in a couple of days. Crito thought Socrates might be sad if awake; therefore he decided not to awaken him. He sat down by Socrates, and waited.
Socrates was a stoic. He had an incredibly calm mind in difficult situations, even when he had been sentenced to death. He said he was not sad about his death sentence because he was old (he was about 70), but his stoic mentality was not the gift of old age. He had shown it in his youth as well, when he went to war.
Socrates was a stoic. He had an incredibly calm mind in difficult situations, even when he had been sentenced to death. He said he was not sad about his death sentence because he was old (he was about 70), but his stoic mentality was not the gift of old age. He had shown it in his youth as well, when he went to war.
SOCRATES: That may be. But you have not told me why you come at this early hour.
CRITO: I come to bring you a message which is sad and painful; not, as I believe, to yourself but to all of us who are your friends, and saddest of all to me.
SOCRATES: What! I suppose that the ship has come from Delos, on the arrival of which I am to die?
CRITO: No, the ship has not actually arrived, but she will probably be here to-day, as persons who have come from Sunium tell me that they have left her there; and therefore to-morrow, Socrates, will be the last day of your life.
SOCRATES: Very well, Crito; if such is the will of God, I am willing; but my belief is that there will be a delay of a day.
CRITO: Why do you say this?
SOCRATES: I will tell you. I am to die on the day after the arrival of the ship?
CRITO: Yes; that is what the authorities say.
SOCRATES: But I do not think that the ship will be here until to-morrow; this I gather from a vision which I had last night, or rather only just now, when you fortunately allowed me to sleep.
CRITO: And what was the nature of the vision?
SOCRATES: There came to me the likeness of a woman, fair and comely, clothed in white raiment, who called to me and said: O Socrates-
Note: Socrates was a logician. He had reasons for believing in God. He did not protest or try to escape his execution, if, he said, it was the will of God. He also believed dreams, at least some of them, are not meaningless.
CRITO: What a singular dream, Socrates!
SOCRATES: There can be no doubt about the meaning Crito, I think.
CRITO: Yes: the meaning is only too clear. But, O! my beloved Socrates, let me entreat you once more to take my advice and escape. For if you die I shall not only lose a friend who can never be replaced, but there is another evil: people who do not know you and me will believe that I might have saved you if I had been willing to give money, but that I did not care. Now, can there be a worse disgrace than this- that I should be thought to value money more than the life of a friend? For the many will not be persuaded that I wanted you to escape, and that you refused.
SOCRATES: But why, my dear Crito, should we care about the opinion of the many? Good men, and they are the only persons who are worth considering, will think of these things truly as they happened.
CRITO: But do you see. Socrates, that the opinion of the many must be regarded, as is evident in your own case, because they can do the very greatest evil to anyone who has lost their good opinion?
SOCRATES: I only wish, Crito, that they could; for then they could also do the greatest good, and that would be well. But the truth is, that they can do neither good nor evil: they cannot make a man wise or make him foolish; and whatever they do is the result of chance.
Note: Crito and other friends of Socrates (Plato was ill at this time, and he did not meet his teacher immediately before his death) wanted to save Socrates. Their plan was to bribe some officials and Socrates to escape, and flee from Athens to another place, such as Thessaly. Socrates refused.
Here comes the interesting question of "the opinion of the many". Crito was worried that people who did not know Socrates did not want to escape death might have bad opinion of him (Crito) and other friends of Socrates because they would think they (Socrates's) friends did not save him (Socrates) from not wanting to part with some money which they valued more than friendship and truth.
Socrates's view is "why should we care about the opinion of the many?" "The many" can do great evils and great good things, but whatever they do is the result of chance. "The many" (the public) are mostly ignorant of things they do and say, and when they say and do, they do with the popular flow, but they don't know the truth about the things.
Socrates (and I) may be politically wrong, but many politically wrong things are true in most hearts in their loneliness.
CRITO: Well, I will not dispute about that; but please to tell me, Socrates, whether you are not acting out of regard to me and your other friends: are you not afraid that if you escape hence we may get into trouble with the informers for having stolen you away, and lose either the whole or a great part of our property; or that even a worse evil may happen to us? Now, if this is your fear, be at ease; for in order to save you, we ought surely to run this or even a greater risk; be persuaded, then, and do as I say.
SOCRATES: Yes, Crito, that is one fear which you mention, but by no means the only one.
CRITO: Fear not. There are persons who at no great cost are willing to save you and bring you out of prison; and as for the informers, you may observe that they are far from being exorbitant in their demands; a little money will satisfy them. My means, which, as I am sure, are ample, are at your service, and if you have a scruple about spending all mine, here are strangers who will give you the use of theirs; and one of them, Simmias the Theban, has brought a sum of money for this very purpose; and Cebes and many others are willing to spend their money too. I say, therefore, do not on that account hesitate about making your escape, and do not say, as you did in the court, that you will have a difficulty in knowing what to do with yourself if you escape. For men will love you in other places to which you may go, and not in Athens only; there are friends of mine in Thessaly, if you like to go to them, who will value and protect you, and no Thessalian will give you any trouble. Nor can I think that you are justified, Socrates, in betraying your own life when you might be saved; this is playing into the hands of your enemies and destroyers; and moreover I should say that you were betraying your children; for you might bring them up and educate them; instead of which you go away and leave them, and they will have to take their chance; and if they do not meet with the usual fate of orphans, there will be small thanks to you. No man should bring children into the world who is unwilling to persevere to the end in their nurture and education. But you are choosing the easier part, as I think, not the better and manlier, which would rather have become one who professes virtue in all his actions, like yourself. And, indeed, I am ashamed not only of you, but of us who are your friends, when I reflect that this entire business of yours will be attributed to our want of courage. The trial need never have come on, or might have been brought to another issue; and the end of all, which is the crowning absurdity, will seem to have been permitted by us, through cowardice and baseness, who might have saved you, as you might have saved yourself, if we had been good for anything (for there was no difficulty in escaping); and we did not see how disgraceful, Socrates, and also miserable all this will be to us as well as to you. Make your mind up then, or rather have your mind already made up, for the time of deliberation is over, and there is only one thing to be done, which must be done, if at all, this very night, and which any delay will render all but impossible; I beseech you therefore, Socrates, to be persuaded by me, and to do as I say.
SOCRATES: Dear Crito, your zeal is invaluable, if a right one; but if wrong, the greater the zeal the greater the evil; and therefore we ought to consider whether these things shall be done or not. For I am and always have been one of those natures who must be guided by reason, whatever the reason may be which upon reflection appears to me to be the best; and now that this fortune has come upon me, I cannot put away the reasons which I have before given: the principles which I have hitherto honored and revered I still honor, and unless we can find other and better principles on the instant, I am certain not to agree with you; no, not even if the power of the multitude could inflict many more imprisonments, confiscations, deaths, frightening us like children with hobgoblin terrors. But what will be the fairest way of considering the question? Shall I return to your old argument about the opinions of men, some of which are to be regarded, and others, as we were saying, are not to be regarded? Now were we right in maintaining this before I was condemned? And has the argument which was once good now proved to be talk for the sake of talking; in fact an amusement only, and altogether vanity? That is what I want to consider with your help, Crito: whether, under my present circumstances, the argument appears to be in any way different or not; and is to be allowed by me or disallowed. That argument, which, as I believe, is maintained by many who assume to be authorities, was to the effect, as I was saying, that the opinions of some men are to be regarded, and of other men not to be regarded. Now you, Crito, are a disinterested person who are not going to die to-morrow- at least, there is no human probability of this, and you are therefore not liable to be deceived by the circumstances in which you are placed. Tell me, then, whether I am right in saying that some opinions, and the opinions of some men only, are to be valued, and other opinions, and the opinions of other men, are not to be valued. I ask you whether I was right in maintaining this?
Note: You face death. Whatever your opinion of what you have done, now you have an opportunity of escaping safely right on the eve of your execution. What would you do?
Socrates faces death, and if nothing unexpected intervenes he will be executed tomorrow. Now, this very moment of the night, he has two options:
(i) he can remain in the cell, and get executed tomorrow,
(ii) his friends have made a clear, safe escape plan, involving bribing some officials--he can escape now.
Socrates remains true to himself, and now, as he has always been, he want to be virtuous in making his choice. Thus, he wants to examine "the virtue" of choosing the second option, i.e. of escaping.
Socrates does not accept or reject the opportunity/proposal right away. He thinks about it, and he would finally refuse to escape.
Is it foolish to do the Socratic way NOW? To be yourself, to stick to your conviction, to what you think is true/virtuous/best? What would the world be if all people forsake what they think is true for animalistic survival without self-esteem?
SOCRATES: Dear Crito, your zeal is invaluable, if a right one; but if wrong, the greater the zeal the greater the evil; and therefore we ought to consider whether these things shall be done or not. For I am and always have been one of those natures who must be guided by reason, whatever the reason may be which upon reflection appears to me to be the best; and now that this fortune has come upon me, I cannot put away the reasons which I have before given: the principles which I have hitherto honored and revered I still honor, and unless we can find other and better principles on the instant, I am certain not to agree with you; no, not even if the power of the multitude could inflict many more imprisonments, confiscations, deaths, frightening us like children with hobgoblin terrors. But what will be the fairest way of considering the question? Shall I return to your old argument about the opinions of men, some of which are to be regarded, and others, as we were saying, are not to be regarded? Now were we right in maintaining this before I was condemned? And has the argument which was once good now proved to be talk for the sake of talking; in fact an amusement only, and altogether vanity? That is what I want to consider with your help, Crito: whether, under my present circumstances, the argument appears to be in any way different or not; and is to be allowed by me or disallowed. That argument, which, as I believe, is maintained by many who assume to be authorities, was to the effect, as I was saying, that the opinions of some men are to be regarded, and of other men not to be regarded. Now you, Crito, are a disinterested person who are not going to die to-morrow- at least, there is no human probability of this, and you are therefore not liable to be deceived by the circumstances in which you are placed. Tell me, then, whether I am right in saying that some opinions, and the opinions of some men only, are to be valued, and other opinions, and the opinions of other men, are not to be valued. I ask you whether I was right in maintaining this?
Note: By "certainly", Crito means Socrates is right in saying that some opinions and the opinions of some only, are to be valued, and other opinions, and the opinion of others are not to be valued.
It is, however, to be noted here that when Socrates said "some opinions" and "the opinions of some only", the "some" are not some particular, fixed opinions and some particular, fixedly specific people. This will be clear soon in what follows in the dialogue, soon.
SOCRATES: The good are to be regarded, and not the bad?
CRITO: Yes.
SOCRATES: And the opinions of the wise are good, and the opinions of the unwise are evil?
CRITO: Certainly.
SOCRATES: And what was said about another matter? Was the disciple in gymnastics supposed to attend to the praise and blame and opinion of every man, or of one man only--his physician or trainer, whoever that was?
CRITO: Of one man only.
Note: "CRITO: Of one man only."
Of the physician or trainer only. Yes, the disciple (gymnast) may have a team of physicians or trainers, and he has to take advice/opinion of this team only, when he wants the best advice on how best he can be a gymnast. If this gymnast wants wants to take some painting lesson, then he should go to a painter, and there the best advice (painting advice) is not of the physician or team of physicians.
CRITO: That is clear.
SOCRATES: And he ought to live and train, and eat and drink in the way which seems good to his single master who has understanding, rather than according to the opinion of all other men put together?
CRITO: True.
SOCRATES: And if he disobeys and disregards the opinion and approval of the one, and regards the opinion of the many who have no understanding, will he not suffer evil?
CRITO: Certainly he will.
SOCRATES: And what will the evil be, whither tending and what affecting, in the disobedient person?
CRITO: Clearly, affecting the body; that is what is destroyed by the evil.
SOCRATES: Very good; and is not this true, Crito, of other things which we need not separately enumerate? In the matter of just and unjust, fair and foul, good and evil, which are the subjects of our present consultation, ought we to follow the opinion of the many and to fear them; or the opinion of the one man who has understanding, and whom we ought to fear and reverence more than all the rest of the world: and whom deserting we shall destroy and injure that principle in us which may be assumed to be improved by justice and deteriorated by injustice; is there not such a principle?
CRITO: Certainly there is, Socrates.SOCRATES: Take a parallel instance; if, acting under the advice of men who have no understanding, we destroy that which is improvable by health and deteriorated by disease--when that has been destroyed, I say, would life be worth having? And that is the body?
Note: Acting on the advice of people who know the matter in question helps you make it (and ignoring their advice may not result in something not so good as you (acting on the wise advice) would have ended), but following the opinion of the many--the unwise opinion of the ignorant--results at least badly, if not destroy everything.
We should ignore the opinion of the ignorant; we should rather honor the opinion of those who know much. Those who know much are very few. So, when we are acting wisely, we take the advice of just a few.
CRITO: Yes.
SOCRATES: Could we live, having an evil and corrupted body?
CRITO: Certainly not.
SOCRATES: And will life be worth having, if that higher part of man be depraved, which is improved by justice and deteriorated by injustice? Do we suppose that principle, whatever it may be in man, which has to do with justice and injustice, to be inferior to the body?
Note: Life is improved by virtue/justice and deteriorated by injustice, the absence of virtue. Virtue/justice is a principle higher than the body. We, our body, is capable of living without virtue/justice, then our life is not honorable. Socrates did not want to compromise his virtue for the sake of survival, because his life/body surviving after his virtue-compromise was not worth living. That is why Socrates had said in the court when the question of escape was brought up that he would not how to live if he escaped.
CRITO: Certainly not.
SOCRATES: More honored, then?
CRITO: Far more honored.
SOCRATES: Then, my friend, we must not regard what the many say of us: but what he, the one man who has understanding of just and unjust, will say, and what the truth will say. And therefore you begin in error when you suggest that we should regard the opinion of the many about just and unjust, good and evil, honorable and dishonorable. Well, someone will say, "But the many can kill us."
CRITO: Yes, Socrates; that will clearly be the answer.
Note: "What people will think of me?" "What they will say about me?"
When we do something which something we are convinced to be good, and if some people begins to raise their eye-brows, most of us fear some unspecified and so general "people" or "they". "People" and "they" haunt our mind, frighten us, threaten us. Socrates's view is "people" or "they" are ignorant or far less (to the extent of being unreliable) knowledgeable than the experts we have in our land in our time. People are so immoral and so groundless and unscrupulous that they want to be with the majority, and their concern is not with just/unjust, justice/injustice, truth/wrong, fair/unfair. They want to be in packs/groups, and they want to howl in a chorus. Sometimes what they do happen to coincide with just, sometimes with unjust. It's all because of chance, but they are ignorant (though they want to be knowledgeable) about the truth.
So, it's advisable that we should not fear "people". It does not mean disrespecting or looking down on them disdainfully.
CRITO: Yes, Socrates; that will clearly be the answer.
SOCRATES: That is true; but still I find with surprise that the old argument is, as I conceive, unshaken as ever. And I should like to know whether I may say the same of another proposition- that not life, but a good life, is to be chiefly valued?
CRITO: Yes, that also remains.
SOCRATES: And a good life is equivalent to a just and honorable one- that holds also?
Note: We are biologically capable of living after the moral or philosophical compromise of our conviction, our virtue. That life of mere vegetative or biological existence is bereft of the higher principle which makes life worth living. To Socrates, for him, he did not want mere life, the life of mere biological existence. If he should live, it was "good life" for him. Good life is just and honorable life.
Thus, if Socrates did not practices what he had always preached and was preaching, if he put his conviction or virtue on hold for that night to escape from the prison, this all would render worthless what he had said in the past, all the dialogues he had with his friends, as if talking for the sake of talking. Socrates could not put his conviction on hold "for a while" by compromising his virtue, because doing that would destroy his own self-esteem, in which he would see himself as virtueless/vice. The result is, he would no more be able to speak or think about virtue, teach people virtue without being conscious of him as virtueless/vice/unjust. The he would not be able to do. And he would not know how to live without talking or thinking about virtue. That would be mere a vegetative/biological existence.
CRITO: Yes, that holds.
SOCRATES: From these premises I proceed to argue the question whether I ought or ought not to try to escape without the consent of the Athenians: and if I am clearly right in escaping, then I will make the attempt; but if not, I will abstain. The other considerations which you mention, of money and loss of character, and the duty of educating children, are, I fear, only the doctrines of the multitude, who would be as ready to call people to life, if they were able, as they are to put them to death- and with as little reason. But now, since the argument has thus far prevailed, the only question which remains to be considered is, whether we shall do rightly either in escaping or in suffering others to aid in our escape and paying them in money and thanks, or whether we shall not do rightly; and if the latter, then death or any other calamity which may ensue on my remaining here must not be allowed to enter into the calculation.
CRITO: I think that you are right, Socrates; how then shall we proceed?
SOCRATES: Let us consider the matter together, and do you either refute me if you can, and I will be convinced; or else cease, my dear friend, from repeating to me that I ought to escape against the wishes of the Athenians: for I am extremely desirous to be persuaded by you, but not against my own better judgment. And now please to consider my first position, and do your best to answer me.
CRITO: I will do my best.
SOCRATES: Are we to say that we are never intentionally to do wrong, or that in one way we ought and in another way we ought not to do wrong, or is doing wrong always evil and dishonorable, as I was just now saying, and as has been already acknowledged by us? Are all our former admissions which were made within a few days to be thrown away? And have we, at our age, been earnestly discoursing with one another all our life long only to discover that we are no better than children? Or are we to rest assured, in spite of the opinion of the many, and in spite of consequences whether better or worse, of the truth of what was then said, that injustice is always an evil and dishonor to him who acts unjustly? Shall we affirm that?
CRITO: Yes.
SOCRATES: Then we must do no wrong?
CRITO: Certainly not.
SOCRATES: Nor when injured injure in return, as the many imagine; for we must injure no one at all?
CRITO: Clearly not.
SOCRATES: Again, Crito, may we do evil?
CRITO: Surely not, Socrates.
SOCRATES: And what of doing evil in return for evil, which is the morality of the many-is that just or not?
CRITO: Not just.
SOCRATES: For doing evil to another is the same as injuring him?
Note: Doing evil to others is injuring them. Doing to people in return what they did to us, which we think evil is committing the same evil as they did to us. Their having done evil to us first does not make our doing the same to them in return less evil.
Being virtuous, thus, involves not retaliating or rendering evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him/her. (Our not being able to be so virtuous is another thing, and that does not improve us or nullify our vice.)
CRITO: Very true.
SOCRATES: Then we ought not to retaliate or render evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him. But I would have you consider, Crito, whether you really mean what you are saying. For this opinion has never been held, and never will be held, by any considerable number of persons; and those who are agreed and those who are not agreed upon this point have no common ground, and can only despise one another, when they see how widely they differ. Tell me, then, whether you agree with and assent to my first principle, that neither injury nor retaliation nor warding off evil by evil is ever right. And shall that be the premise of our agreement? Or do you decline and dissent from this? For this has been of old and is still my opinion; but, if you are of another opinion, let me hear what you have to say. If, however, you remain of the same mind as formerly, I will proceed to the next step.
Note: Characteristic of him, Socrates did never impose his opinion on others. He would persuade others into a dialogue, in which he would question the latent assumption or assumptions on which people's opinions and decisions are based, and by doing that he would have the persons in dialogues with him to agree to the groundlessness or unreasonableness of their stands. Then he would present a proposition, if he had one, and they would discuss that, finally leading to a conclusion which the limit of their reasoning could give. Only when they had reached an agreement on a point, then would they move to the next stage based on that agreement. Not a forced process.
At the end of each of such dialogues which Socrates had been engaging in until his death, many would happily agree with him, while many others (when they could not reason against Socrates, either because they were of inferior wits or because Socrates's arguments were immaculate) had developed an animosity toward him (probably because they were angry at being proved wrong or outwitted by Socrates).
CRITO: You may proceed, for I have not changed my mind.
SOCRATES: Then I will proceed to the next step, which may be put in the form of a question: Ought a man to do what he admits to be right, or ought he to betray the right?
CRITO: He ought to do what he thinks right.
SOCRATES: But if this is true, what is the application? In leaving the prison against the will of the Athenians, do I wrong any? or rather do I not wrong those whom I ought least to wrong? Do I not desert the principles which were acknowledged by us to be just? What do you say?
Note: Though his trial and conviction was influenced by some people in power who had an animosity toward him for having outwitted them, Socrates rightly regarded the decision of the Athenian authority (a jury of 500 Athenians) as the decision/will of all Athenians. He believed that society/government made his existence possible, and he had been brought up by Athens. If Athens, the society, did not want him alive, they would have killed him, whether reasonably or gratuitously. However, Athens had allowed him to live, had let him alone. Thus, he owed Athens a lot.
His conviction (the death sentence) might be wrong, but that was the end of Athens's wits. And though he did honor the opinion of the ignorant (= the many), the many made it possible for his good, honorable life to exist, and so when this more powerful force wanted now to end him (for whatever reason which they think is culpable by Athenian law), his had to submit physically, though he did not agree to the allegations. In fact, the Athenian court gave him the options: (i) to plead guilty, and not to engage in his practice of "corrupting the youths" any further, (ii) not to plead guilty, but to drink a bowl-full of poison and die. Socrates chose the latter.
Even if he escaped execution, then whatever new place he might go to, it would be the same there. So, all efforts against the will of the Athenians would be worthless for him.
CRITO: I cannot tell, Socrates, for I do not know.
SOCRATES: Then consider the matter in this way: Imagine that I am about to play truant (you may call the proceeding by any name which you like), and the laws and the government come and interrogate me: "Tell us, Socrates," they say; "what are you about? are you going by an act of yours to overturn us- the laws and the whole State, as far as in you lies? Do you imagine that a State can subsist and not be overthrown, in which the decisions of law have no power, but are set aside and overthrown by individuals?" What will be our answer, Crito, to these and the like words? Anyone, and especially a clever rhetorician, will have a good deal to urge about the evil of setting aside the law which requires a sentence to be carried out; and we might reply, "Yes; but the State has injured us and given an unjust sentence." Suppose I say that?
CRITO: Very good, Socrates.
SOCRATES: "And was that our agreement with you?" the law would say, "or were you to abide by the sentence of the State?" And if I were to express astonishment at their saying this, the law would probably add: "Answer, Socrates, instead of opening your eyes: you are in the habit of asking and answering questions. Tell us what complaint you have to make against us which justifies you in attempting to destroy us and the State? In the first place did we not bring you into existence? Your father married your mother by our aid and begat you. Say whether you have any objection to urge against those of us who regulate marriage?" None, I should reply. "Or against those of us who regulate the system of nurture and education of children in which you were trained? Were not the laws, who have the charge of this, right in commanding your father to train you in music and gymnastic?" Right, I should reply. "Well, then, since you were brought into the world and nurtured and educated by us, can you deny in the first place that you are our child and slave, as your fathers were before you? And if this is true you are not on equal terms with us; nor can you think that you have a right to do to us what we are doing to you. Would you have any right to strike or revile or do any other evil to a father or to your master, if you had one, when you have been struck or reviled by him, or received some other evil at his hands?- you would not say this? And because we think right to destroy you, do you think that you have any right to destroy us in return, and your country as far as in you lies? And will you, O professor of true virtue, say that you are justified in this? Has a philosopher like you failed to discover that our country is more to be valued and higher and holier far than mother or father or any ancestor, and more to be regarded in the eyes of the gods and of men of understanding? also to be soothed, and gently and reverently entreated when angry, even more than a father, and if not persuaded, obeyed? And when we are punished by her, whether with imprisonment or stripes, the punishment is to be endured in silence; and if she leads us to wounds or death in battle, thither we follow as is right; neither may anyone yield or retreat or leave his rank, but whether in battle or in a court of law, or in any other place, he must do what his city and his country order him; or he must change their view of what is just: and if he may do no violence to his father or mother, much less may he do violence to his country." What answer shall we make to this, Crito? Do the laws speak truly, or do they not?
CRITO: I think that they do.SOCRATES: Then the laws will say: "Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the State, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer and he does neither. These are the sort of accusations to which, as we were saying, you, Socrates, will be exposed if you accomplish your intentions; you, above all other Athenians." Suppose I ask, why is this? they will justly retort upon me that I above all other men have acknowledged the agreement. "There is clear proof," they will say, "Socrates, that we and the city were not displeasing to you. Of all Athenians you have been the most constant resident in the city, which, as you never leave, you may be supposed to love. For you never went out of the city either to see the games, except once when you went to the Isthmus, or to any other place unless when you were on military service; nor did you travel as other men do. Nor had you any curiosity to know other States or their laws: your affections did not go beyond us and our State; we were your especial favorites, and you acquiesced in our government of you; and this is the State in which you begat your children, which is a proof of your satisfaction. Moreover, you might, if you had liked, have fixed the penalty at banishment in the course of the trial-the State which refuses to let you go now would have let you go then. But you pretended that you preferred death to exile, and that you were not grieved at death. And now you have forgotten these fine sentiments, and pay no respect to us, the laws, of whom you are the destroyer; and are doing what only a miserable slave would do, running away and turning your back upon the compacts and agreements which you made as a citizen. And first of all answer this very question: Are we right in saying that you agreed to be governed according to us in deed, and not in word only? Is that true or not?" How shall we answer that, Crito? Must we not agree?
CRITO: There is no help, Socrates.SOCRATES: Then will they not say: "You, Socrates, are breaking the covenants and agreements which you made with us at your leisure, not in any haste or under any compulsion or deception, but having had seventy years to think of them, during which time you were at liberty to leave the city, if we were not to your mind, or if our covenants appeared to you to be unfair. You had your choice, and might have gone either to Lacedaemon or Crete, which you often praise for their good government, or to some other Hellenic or foreign State. Whereas you, above all other Athenians, seemed to be so fond of the State, or, in other words, of us her laws (for who would like a State that has no laws?), that you never stirred out of her: the halt, the blind, the maimed, were not more stationary in her than you were. And now you run away and forsake your agreements. Not so, Socrates, if you will take our advice; do not make yourself ridiculous by escaping out of the city.
"For just consider, if you transgress and err in this sort of way, what good will you do, either to yourself or to your friends? That your friends will be driven into exile and deprived of citizenship, or will lose their property, is tolerably certain; and you yourself, if you fly to one of the neighboring cities, as, for example, Thebes or Megara, both of which are well-governed cities, will come to them as an enemy, Socrates, and their government will be against you, and all patriotic citizens will cast an evil eye upon you as a subverter of the laws, and you will confirm in the minds of the judges the justice of their own condemnation of you. For he who is a corrupter of the laws is more than likely to be corrupter of the young and foolish portion of mankind. Will you then flee from well-ordered cities and virtuous men? and is existence worth having on these terms? Or will you go to them without shame, and talk to them, Socrates? And what will you say to them? What you say here about virtue and justice and institutions and laws being the best things among men? Would that be decent of you? Surely not. But if you go away from well-governed States to Crito's friends in Thessaly, where there is great disorder and license, they will be charmed to have the tale of your escape from prison, set off with ludicrous particulars of the manner in which you were wrapped in a goatskin or some other disguise, and metamorphosed as the fashion of runaways is- that is very likely; but will there be no one to remind you that in your old age you violated the most sacred laws from a miserable desire of a little more life? Perhaps not, if you keep them in a good temper; but if they are out of temper you will hear many degrading things; you will live, but how?- as the flatterer of all men, and the servant of all men; and doing what?- eating and drinking in Thessaly, having gone abroad in order that you may get a dinner. And where will be your fine sentiments about justice and virtue then? Say that you wish to live for the sake of your children, that you may bring them up and educate them- will you take them into Thessaly and deprive them of Athenian citizenship? Is that the benefit which you would confer upon them? Or are you under the impression that they will be better cared for and educated here if you are still alive, although absent from them; for that your friends will take care of them? Do you fancy that if you are an inhabitant of Thessaly they will take care of them, and if you are an inhabitant of the other world they will not take care of them? Nay; but if they who call themselves friends are truly friends, they surely will."
"Listen, then, Socrates, to us who have brought you up. Think not of life and children first, and of justice afterwards, but of justice first, that you may be justified before the princes of the world below. For neither will you nor any that belong to you be happier or holier or juster in this life, or happier in another, if you do as Crito bids. Now you depart in innocence, a sufferer and not a doer of evil; a victim, not of the laws, but of men. But if you go forth, returning evil for evil, and injury for injury, breaking the covenants and agreements which you have made with us, and wronging those whom you ought least to wrong, that is to say, yourself, your friends, your country, and us, we shall be angry with you while you live, and our brethren, the laws in the world below, will receive you as an enemy; for they will know that you have done your best to destroy us. Listen, then, to us and not to Crito."
This is the voice which I seem to hear murmuring in my ears, like the sound of the flute in the ears of the mystic; that voice, I say, is humming in my ears, and prevents me from hearing any other. And I know that anything more which you will say will be in vain. Yet speak, if you have anything to say.
CRITO: I have nothing to say, Socrates.
SOCRATES: Then let me follow the intimations of the will of God.
Note: The law just be just, and at its best it is just (though it is not always at its best), and it is the limit of humans' wits. The law of a land at a particular point in its history can be flawed, but the land (its people) is at its best at that time. God's will, according to Socrates, is nothing but the opinion of man at their best. Every place on the earth has the ups and downs of their laws, but at every given moment, they live at the limit of their best. If you don't like the law of land A, you are free to go to land B (this movement is regulated by international laws, which change from time to time), the laws of which you have to abide by, in the same way as you do while in land A. Wherever you go, this is the case--the same.
If you disagree with certain legal codes of the land, you can challenge that. You have the right. You have to state your point, explain and argue for it, should convincingly prove that your suggestions are better than what the particular codes have. You should be able to convince the state (yes, it take time, courage, and intellect), and let them see the necessity of replacing the old code by what you suggest. If you can't convince them, you have to abide by the law you think bad/flawed/wrong. Or you should leave the land which is the jurisdiction of the law you disagree with. However, if you stay in the land (with the "flawed" law's jurisdiction) and keep revolting against the law, you are a criminal by the law.
Socrates could not convince the state. At the same time, he did not want to leave the land, and go to another land. That would be the most unwise thing to do for him. So, he chose not to pledge guilty, not to compromise his belief/conviction, but to die.