On the other hand, if he refuses to escape from prison and abides by the execution of the sentence pronounced upon him, he will have a good defense when he stands before the tribunal of the judgment of the dead. To return evil for evil may be in harmony with the morality of the many, but as he has indicated before, public opinion when not supported by good reasons is never a safe guide to follow.
Ought one to accept the penalty imposed on him by legal means that are unjust. If they do abide by it, they must admit that it would be wrong for Socrates to heed the advice of Crito by trying to escape from prison.
Their judgment was not a correct one, and, therefore, Socrates is under no obligation to see that it is carried out. Links behind paywalls or registration walls are not allowed. In the case of Socrates, there was ample evidence to indicate he had been condemned unjustly and that the law that demanded his execution was not a good one.
Socrates did have the chance to escape what the unfair fate had in store, a fate his fellow citizens had created for him. Stephen Hicks 3 Comments CritojusticepaternalismPhaedoprocedural justicesocial contractSocrates In the Crito, Socrates is in prison awaiting execution for impiety and corrupting the youth.
He believes, too, that a good life is equivalent to one that is just and honorable.
Socrates then reminds him that to act in that manner would be a case of returning evil for evil, which would contradict what he has already admitted should never be done.
What would happen if I chose to escape and the laws of the land came to me and asked: Crito asks if Socrates does not fear that escaping from prison would cause his friends to get in trouble with the authorities of the land and that this might cause them to lose a portion of their property or possibly suffer something that might be even worse than that.
The passages we have cited make it clear both that a thing's is to be identified by reference to its and that damage to an is damage to the thing whose it is just because it interferes with the proper performance of the related It must follow that anything which impairs this proper performance will count as harm to the thing whose activities are thereby frustated, even if in certain cases we find it unconvincing to say that its seen as an enduring property of the thing, is neces- sarily reduced or damaged.
To put the point in a slightly different way, there is no suggestion here that we can properly ask the question 'When will it do harm for a law to be broken, and when will it not. Socrates does not agree with him and, accordingly, sets forth his reasons for holding that one is obliged to submit to the punishment imposed on him, even though the punishment may be an unjust one.
Socrates is not disturbed by this fact, for he believes that death is not necessarily an evil thing. Socrates then reminds him that to act in that manner would be a case of returning evil for evil, which would contradict what he has already admitted should never be done.
By refusing to escape, you will be taking the easier but not the better and manlier part, and, therefore, people will be ashamed not only of you but also of your friends, who they will maintain were lacking in the necessary courage to save you from an untimely death.
But - and this is the point which Woozley seems to miss - they must also be irrelevant from the point of view of his friends. The dawn is just beginning to break, and Socrates has been sleeping soundly throughout the night.
Ought one to accept the penalty imposed on him by legal means that are unjust. The first principle in Socrates views of righteousness are that neither injury nor retaliation nor warding off evil by evil is ever right. At a later date, Plato's pupil Aristotle left Athens to escape death at the hands of the anti-Macedonians, saying that he wanted to spare the city from another crime against philosophy.
Such accusations could only add to the grief that Crito would already have experienced in the loss of a friend who could never be replaced. The foregoing discussion has made clearer, if that were necessary, Socrates' reasons for refusing to do anything which seemed to him to be bi8cxov.
For Socrates, life is meaningful only if it serves justice, which, as all members of any democratic society agree upon, is the law. Post titles cannot consist only in questions, even if the title of the linked material is a question. And what will happen if the laws answer: The issue raised in this dialog is an important one, for it has given rise to controversies that have persisted over the centuries, and in certain areas it is still an issue at the present time.
Therefore, the statement shaped the jury's thoughts of Socrates before they even had the chance to hear him out, which made their decision in sentencing him a bias decision. If he had chosen to do so, he could have left the city at any time, but his very presence and participation in the life of the city was evidence of his approval of the way in which its activities had been maintained.
Has he thereby impaired its The question is what might be called a 'nice' one, and we have, I think, no very clear way of answering it: The only question which remains to be considered is, whether we do rightly either in escaping or in suffering others to aid in our escape.
No discrimination based on wealth or social position should be permitted. Socrates exhibited extraordinary courage during the proceedings. All lawmakers have the feeling that their laws are final, that this law should never be broken.
This writer has heard these arguments at a trial in Brisk.  The dictator of Poland, Pilsudski, had accused a number of Polish politicians in court and charged them with trying to violate his dictatorship.
The worthy, the ones we should care about, will think that everything happened exactly as it should have”, Socrates replied. Crito insists and tries to put pressure on him.
“ All your friends are determined to risk everything to save you ”, he says. Get an answer for 'Explain the reason why Socrates would not escape from prison?' and find homework help for other Crito questions at eNotes.
Meletus, the prosecutor, alleged that Socrates had broken Athenian law by failing to observe the state gods, by introducing new gods, and by corrupting the youth.
Meletus, as prosecutor, and Socrates, as defendant, delivered timed speeches before a jury of of their fellow citizens. They concern the reasons which Socrates puts forward in the latter part of the dialogue (50 ff.)2 why a man should always obey the law, and specifically why Socrates, at the present time, should not disobey the law by trying to escape from prison.
Socrates: Should he have escaped prison? September 14, In issue 4, he argues that he made a decision to stay when he could have left, implying that he was a free agent with a choice in the matter.
does this not mean that the law has broken the agreement? And if the agreement is broken by one party, is the other party not then.Should socrates have broken the law and left prison