Summary
In *Crito*, Plato presents Socrates’ argument that a citizen must never return injustice for injustice, even when facing an unjust death sentence. The central claim is that breaking the laws of Athens to escape execution would harm the city and violate the implicit agreement Socrates made to obey its legal system. Socrates personifies the Laws of Athens, who argue that by choosing to live in the city for decades, he consented to abide by its rulings. The dialogue explores themes of civic duty, moral integrity, and the social contract between an individual and their state. A reader takes away the principle that justice requires consistency—one cannot selectively follow laws only when convenient, and that personal survival does not outweigh the obligation to uphold a just society.
Key concepts
- Personification of the Laws — Socrates imagines the Laws of Athens speaking to him as a unified entity, arguing that escaping prison would destroy them by undermining their authority.
- Implicit social contract — The Laws claim that by remaining in Athens as an adult citizen, Socrates tacitly agreed to obey all its legal decisions, including his own execution.
- Principle of never returning injustice — Socrates asserts that it is never morally permissible to repay wrong with wrong, even when the state has wronged you.
- Argument from consistency — The Laws point out that Socrates never left Athens despite having the opportunity, so he cannot now reject its judgment.
- Duty to persuade or obey — The Laws state that a citizen’s proper response to an unjust law is to persuade the state to change it, not to disobey.
From the book
Title: The Apology, Phaedo and Crito of Plato; Golden Sayings of Epictetus; Meditations of Marcus Aurelius by Charles William Eliot, Πλάτων, Epictetus