home | what's new | other sites | contact | about

  

 

Word Gems 

self-knowledge, authentic living, full humanity, continual awakening 

 

Great Books

Summary and Review

 

Plato: Crito

 

 

return to 'Great Books' main-page

 

Commentary by ChatGPT

 

We now move from the courtroom to the prison cell.

Crito

Chronologically and philosophically, this dialogue follows directly after the Apology. Socrates has been sentenced to death. He is awaiting execution. His friend Crito comes before dawn with a plan to help him escape.

This is a short dialogue — but one of enormous importance.

Historical Note

  • Date: around 399 BC.

  • Location: Athens, in prison.

  • Political background: Athens is recovering from war and political instability.

  • Legal system: Jury verdicts are final; escape would be illegal and considered subversive.

Socrates has already been condemned. Now the question is no longer “What is justice?” but:

Should one obey an unjust verdict?

Orientation to the Dialogue

The central question:

Is it ever right to break the law — even when the law has treated you unjustly?

This dialogue develops themes from Apology:

  • Moral integrity over public opinion.

  • Justice over survival.

  • Principle over emotion.

But here the issue sharpens:

  • Is obeying the law itself a moral obligation?

Portion I — Crito’s Plea

1. Setting

Crito arrives early in the morning.
He tells Socrates the execution ship will return soon.
There is little time left.

He urges Socrates to escape.

2. Faithful Paraphrase

Crito presents several arguments:

A. Public Opinion

If Socrates dies:

  • People will think his friends were unwilling to spend money to save him.

  • Crito’s reputation will suffer.

Socrates responds immediately:
We should not care about what “most people” think.
We should care about what the wise and just think.

Public opinion can harm the body.
But only reason and justice concern the soul.

B. Loss to His Sons

Crito argues:

  • If Socrates dies, his children will grow up without a father.

  • He has a duty to raise them.

Socrates implies:
Raising children unjustly (by breaking the law) is no benefit to them.

Moral example matters more than physical presence.

C. Injustice of the Verdict

Crito insists:

  • The trial was unjust.

  • Therefore, escaping is justified.

This becomes the turning point.

Socrates asks:

Should one commit injustice in response to injustice?

Essential Principle Introduced

Socrates states clearly:

  1. One must never do wrong.

  2. One must never return injustice for injustice.

  3. One must never harm — even in retaliation.

This is a radical moral claim.

It rejects revenge.
It rejects “balancing the scales” through retaliation.

Justice must remain consistent.

Key Line Worth Hearing

Socrates says (paraphrased):

It is not living that matters, but living rightly.

This deepens the Apology’s claim about the examined life.

Now it becomes:

Right action outweighs survival.

Essential Glossary and Key Concepts

Public Opinion (the Many) – Socrates distinguishes between the judgment of the majority and the judgment of the wise.

Injustice for Injustice – The temptation to retaliate when wronged.

Moral Consistency – Ethical principles must apply even when inconvenient.

The Soul – The moral core of a person; harmed by wrongdoing.

How This Portion Fits the Dialogue Structure

This opening section:

  • Clears away emotional arguments.

  • Establishes foundational moral principles.

  • Prepares for the more radical argument that follows.

The real philosophical innovation comes next:

Socrates will personify the Laws of Athens and allow them to speak.

Deeper Significance (So Far)

  1. Justice is not situational.

  2. Moral integrity does not bend under pressure.

  3. The soul’s condition matters more than bodily survival.

  4. Retaliation is morally impermissible.

This anticipates later moral traditions that reject revenge as ethical policy.

Place in the Great Conversation (Preview)

This dialogue will influence:

  • Natural law theory.

  • Social contract theory.

  • Debates about civil disobedience.

  • The tension between conscience and state authority.

We will expand this fully after completing the dialogue.

Next we move to the most dramatic section:

Portion II — The Laws of Athens Speak

This is where Socrates constructs one of the earliest social contract arguments in Western thought.

We now enter the philosophical core of the dialogue.

Crito

Portion II — The Laws of Athens Speak

This is one of the most remarkable moments in all of Plato. Socrates imagines the Laws of Athens speaking to him directly.

He does not ask, “What do I want?”
He asks, “What would Justice itself say?”

1. The Dramatic Turn

Socrates tells Crito:

Let us imagine the Laws confronting me:

“Socrates, what are you doing? Are you attempting to destroy us?”

He personifies the Laws — gives them voice and authority.

This is not emotional rhetoric. It is moral reasoning dramatized.

2. Faithful Paraphrase of the Laws’ Argument

The Laws argue in stages.

A. You Were Born Under Us

The Laws say:

  • We governed your parents’ marriage.

  • We governed your birth.

  • We governed your education.

  • We gave you legal structure and protection.

In other words:

You owe your existence and civic life to us.

To destroy the law by escaping would be to undermine the system that formed you.

B. You Had the Choice to Leave

The Laws continue:

  • Athens allows citizens to leave freely.

  • You lived here 70 years.

  • You chose not to emigrate.

  • You even raised children here.

By staying, you tacitly agreed to obey the laws.

This is an early version of tacit consent.

C. Law Cannot Function if Individuals Disobey Verdicts

If each person:

  • Obeys when convenient,

  • Disobeys when not,

Then law collapses.

The Laws argue:

A city cannot survive if court decisions are overturned by private citizens.

Thus, escaping would harm the civic order.

D. You Must Either Persuade or Obey

The Laws propose a key principle:

In Athens, you may:

  • Persuade the city to change the law,

  • Or obey the law as it stands.

But you may not:

  • Break it secretly.

This is profound.

It defines lawful dissent:

  • Reform through persuasion.

  • Not destruction through defiance.

3. The Moral Conclusion

Socrates concludes:

To escape would be:

  • Breaking agreements.

  • Harming the city.

  • Returning injustice for injustice.

  • Corrupting his own soul.

Therefore:

He must remain and accept execution.

Key Line Worth Hearing

Paraphrased essence:

One must either persuade the laws or obey them.

This becomes a foundational political principle.

Essential Glossary Additions

Tacit Consent – Agreement implied by participation and continued residence.

Social Contract – The implicit agreement between citizen and state.

Persuade or Obey Principle – Legitimate change must occur through lawful argument, not private disobedience.

Civic Integrity – Moral consistency within public life.

How This Section Fits the Dialogue

Portion I:

  • Established moral principles (never return injustice).

Portion II:

  • Applies those principles to political life.

  • Constructs one of the earliest social contract theories.

Portion III (brief closing):

  • Socrates calmly accepts the conclusion.

Deeper Significance

Here we see tension between:

  • Individual conscience.

  • Civic obligation.

  • Justice as personal virtue.

  • Justice as legal structure.

Socrates resolves the tension by privileging:

  • Moral consistency.

  • Preservation of lawful order.

  • Integrity of the soul.

This is not blind obedience.
It is principled obedience grounded in reasoned commitment.

What You Must Not Miss

  1. Law is personified as moral authority.

  2. Citizenship implies consent.

  3. Private retaliation undermines public order.

  4. Justice must be coherent across personal and civic life.

  5. Socrates’ acceptance is philosophical, not passive.

Let us complete the dialogue.

Crito

Portion III — Final Resolution

1. The Closing Movement

After imagining the Laws speaking, Socrates tells Crito:

He hears their argument “ringing in his ears.”

He says he can no longer hear any contrary argument.

His decision is settled.

There is no drama.
No hesitation.
No resentment.

Only calm moral clarity.

2. Faithful Paraphrase of the Ending

Socrates concludes:

  • To escape would be unjust.

  • Injustice harms the soul.

  • One must never harm the soul.

  • Therefore, escape is impossible for him.

Crito falls silent.

The dialogue ends quietly.

No heroic speeches.
No emotional farewell.

Just philosophical consistency carried to its end.

What Just Happened?

In Apology, Socrates defended philosophy publicly.
In Crito, he proves he lives by his principles privately.

The unity is complete:

  • The examined life (Apology)

  • The refusal to retaliate (Crito)

  • Moral integrity over survival (both)

Essential Concepts Reinforced

Justice Is Not Circumstantial
You do not suspend principles when wronged.

Law as Moral Structure
Even flawed laws are preferable to lawlessness.

Integrity of the Soul
The worst harm is moral corruption.

Philosophy as Practice
Ideas are proven through action.

Full Structural Overview of Crito

  1. Crito’s emotional and practical appeals.

  2. Socrates’ foundational moral principles.

  3. Personification of the Laws.

  4. Social contract reasoning.

  5. Calm acceptance of death.

Short dialogue — immense influence.

Deeper Significance

This dialogue introduces enduring tensions:

  • Conscience vs. State

  • Justice vs. Legal Authority

  • Reform vs. Revolution

  • Obedience vs. Civil Disobedience

Socrates’ solution is strict:

Obey the law unless you can persuade it to change.

He chooses civic integrity over personal survival.

Place in the Great Conversation

Central Contribution

Crito offers one of the earliest articulations of social contract theory and civic obligation.

It explores whether moral conscience allows disobedience to law.

Influence on Later Thinkers

  • Thomas Aquinas — distinguished just and unjust laws within natural law theory.

  • Hobbes, Thomas — formalized social contract theory emphasizing order and authority.

  • Locke, John — argued that unjust governments may be resisted.

  • Rousseau, Jean-Jacques — developed social contract around general will and civic freedom.

  • King Jr., Martin Luther — explicitly addressed just vs. unjust laws in civil disobedience, arguing that unjust laws may be morally resisted.

The Enduring Question

Is obedience to law always required?

Socrates answers:
Yes — if you have freely accepted the system and cannot persuade it otherwise.

Later thinkers modify this answer:

  • Some defend resistance.

  • Some defend revolution.

  • Some defend principled civil disobedience.

Crito is the starting point of that debate.

Consolidated Takeaways for Your Notes

  • Never return injustice for injustice.

  • Moral integrity outweighs survival.

  • Citizenship implies tacit consent.

  • Law must be obeyed or lawfully persuaded.

  • Justice applies consistently in private and public life.

  • Introduces early social contract reasoning.

We now have completed:

  • Euthyphro — What is piety? (positive vs. natural law)

  • Apology — The examined life and moral courage

  • Crito — Justice, civic obligation, and the social contract

The next logical step in the sequence would be:

Phaedo

There we move from political philosophy to metaphysics:

  • The immortality of the soul

  • The nature of forms

  • Philosophy as preparation for death

 

Editor's last word: