Philosophy 106: Politics, Philosophy & Society

Jason Brown
Professor Fernando Zapata
Notions of Justice in Crito
The main subject of discourse between Crito and Socrates
in Crito was whether Socrates was justified in declining the
opportunity to escape from Athens as he awaited a death sentence in
jail. Although he and Crito agree that it would be of little trouble to
anyone if he were to escape, Socrates asserts that the violation of
Athenian law in any capacity goes against his principles of justice. The
main reasoning for this is in his assertion that he had always
consented to a social contract between himself and the Laws of
Athens, and that because he did, he has to abide by them, even when
their effects hurt him personally. In this paper, I will argue Socrates is
correct in his reasoning that he consented to the Laws of Athens, and
based on that, cannot justify escaping from prison.
In arguing that he fully consented to the Laws and conventions
of Athens, Socrates points to the fact that he actively chose his city
over alternatives. At one point, he mentions that a potential critic of
his choice to leave might say, You had your choice, and might have
gone either to Lacedaemon or Crete, both which states are often
praised by you for their good government, or to some other Hellenic
or foreign state. (51b) He notes that in his decision to live in Athens,
he agreed that he would stand by Athenian Law, and that he would
uphold it as a responsible citizen. One could argue that if Socrates

lacked viable alternatives to Athens, Athens would merely be the

lesser of many unjust states; a scenario in which he would not actually
be able to fairly consent to living there. This scenario would not be
Socrates consenting to a life in Athens, but merely him not consenting
to other states. However, because Socrates fully believes that he knew
of viable alternatives and felt that he had the power to move to them
if he wanted, he did actively consent to his life in Athens.
Socrates maintains that by living in Athens, he cannot pick and choose
the Laws. He must follow them even when they hurt him, because an
evasion of one law is the disregard for the authority of the entire
state. However, this argument begs the question: if Athens was a
generally just state, does he have an obligation to abide by an unjust
law by Athens? In the event that the government of Athens would
listen to a protest by Socrates, whether in the form of a trial or any
other means, the answer is clear. If the Laws are believed to be just,
which they are through Socrates agreement to them, and the
implementation of the Laws are just, as Socrates did receive a trial
prior to his sentence, then Socrates ought to uphold the laws in order
to uphold justice. To break the laws and be justified would be to say
that the system of the laws is unjust, which is inconsistent with the
argument above.
Nevertheless, the argument that Socrates' trial was unjust could
still be viable, as Socrates may have been denied ability to fully utilize

the fair trial awarded to him through the Laws. This scenario would
be the only one where it would be just for Socrates to leave, because
if an established law were unjustly implemented, it would not be
within the contract of what Socrates agreed to obey. He would have
the obligation to leave Athens and uphold justice. However, within the
text, there is no mention of the nature of the trial. Crito does not
mention the role of Athens in Socrates escape, which suggests that
the trial had processed fairly.
Crito's argument only has weight in the case that Socrates
believes the government had breached the contract. If, when Socrates
analyzes the verdict, he believes he was given a fair trial, then he still
ought to face his punishment because he believes the contract to be
unbroken. If it were Crito in Socrates' place, he could be morally
justified in escaping if he believed the contract to be broken because
of an unjust trial.
Although the Athenian system may have been unjust, Socrates
consented to the form of government through his years of living
within the state. However, being a member of the system, he had the
right to contest the government at any point, even when he received
his final verdict. It would have been morally sound for Socrates to
escape his punishment if he believed the contract between himself
and the government was broken. When faced with alternatives and
reasoning why the state may be unjust, Socrates believed the contract

was not breached. He was given the tools to understand his

government; he consciously lived under agreement with his
government. Under this reasoning, Socrates had an obligation to
withstand his punishment. To evade it would be morally unjust
because Socrates would be violating a legal system he believed was
just.