Part 10 - Divine Command Theory: Evaluating Plato's Argument

The concluding premise of Plato's argument is: Therefore, even from a religious point of view, a standard of right and wrong that is independent of God's will must be accepted.

How should we evaluate Plato's concluding premise?

Premise 1. This premise does two things:

a. It assumes the three claims about God implid by Divine Command Theory (which all compiled together claim, "God commands us to do what is right")
b. It takes this assumption to imply that either Horn 1 (Divine Command Theory is true: right conduct is right because God commands it (or approves of it) and wrong conduct is wrong because God forbids or disapproves of it.) or Horn 2 (Divine Command Theory is false: God commands or approves of right conduct because it is right and forbids or disapproves of wrong conduct because it is wrong.) is true.

Premise 4: This premise is a conclusion that is supported by premises 1, 2, and 3.

Premise 6: This is a further conclusion, supported by 4 and 5.

With this overview of Plato's argument in mind, we should now ask, "Is this a sousnd argument?" This call for assessment breaks down into two distinct questions:

1. Is the argument value?

Examine the form of the argument. The form consists of the following:

Step 1:
1) Either (a) or (b)
2) If (a) then (c)
3) If (b) then (d)

Step 2:
4) Therefore, either (c) or (d) [supposed to follow from 1, 2, and 3
5) Not (c)
6) Therefore, (d) [supposed to follow from 4 and 5]

Notice that there are two distinct steps or inferences in Plato's argument:

Step 1: From 1, 2, and 3 to 4 (premises 1, 2, and 3 are supposed to imply line 4)
Step 2: From 4, 5, to 6 (premises 4 and 5 are supposed to imply line 6)

If both steps are valid, then the entire argument is valid and the fact is that both steps of the Platonic Argument are valid, so the entire argument is valid. If there is anything wrong with the argument, it must be that one of its premises is false.

2. Are the premises all true?

To answer this question we ask whether lines 1, 2, 3 and 5 are true (Remember that lines 4 and 6 are conclusions that definitely follows from the other premises. In other words if 1, 2, 3, and 5 are true then 4 and 6 have to be true as well.)

So the question arises as to whether 1, 2, 3, and 5 are true?

It has been concluded that at the very least, this argument shows that there is potentially a serious problem with Divine Command Theory. If Divine Command Theory is to be salvaged there must be some way of "going between the horns of the dilemma." In other words, there must be some way of accepting Divine Command Theory without having to accept that god's commands are morally arbitrary and without giving up on the doctrine of the goodness of God. In order to do so this, you must be able to give good reasons for thinking that premises 1, 2, 3 and/or 5 are false.

Part 9 - The Platonic Argument Against Divine Command Theory

A moral formal presentation of the Platonic argument against Divine Command Theory may be presented as follows:

1. Suppose God commands us to do what is right. Then either (a) the right actions are right because he commands them or (b) he commands them because they are right.

2. If we take option (a) then God commands are, from a moral point of view, arbitrary; moreover, the doctrine of the goodness of God is tendered meaningless [i.e., empty or trivial]

3. If we take option (b) then we have acknowledged a standard of right and wrong that is independent of God's will [and therefore committed ourselves to the claim that God is not omnipotent]. We will have in effect given up the theological conception of right and wrong.

4. Therefore, we must either regard God's commands as arbitrary, and give up the doctrine of the goodness of god, or admit that there is a standard of right an wrong that is independent of his will, and give up the theological conception of right and wrong.

5. From a religious point of view, it is undesirable to regard God's commands as arbitrary or to give up the doctrine of the goodness of God.

6. Therefore, even from a religious point of view, a standard of right and wrong that is independent of God's will must be accepted.

It is important to notice how this argument concludes. Point 5 claims that for a religious person, the consequences of accepting Divine Command theory are even worse than the consequences of rejecting Divine command theory. Remember these consequences:

1. To accept Divine Command Theory is to admit that there is an inherent arbitrariness to the rightness or wrongness of moral standards.

2. To accept Divine Command Theory is to reject the understanding of God as good.

Most religious individuals regard these two consequences as intolerable and therefore Divine Command Theory should be rejected.

So, the argument concludes, religious people should actually accept the consequences of rejecting Divine Command Theory and therefore reject Divine Command Theory completely.

Part 8 - Divine Command Theory and Horn 2

Horn 2 leads to the conclusion that Divine Command Theory is false. Specifically horn 2 of Plato's Dilemma contends that God commands or approves of right conduct because it is right and forbids or disapproves of wrong conduct because it is wrong. In short, right is right prior to divine fiat and so also is the case with moral conduct that is wrong. God simply endorses what is already right and what is already wrong.

But there is also an undesirable consequence to taking this position. God commands actions because they are morally right but then there is a standard of morality that is independent of God's commands. God does not control morality; rather he knows which actions are right or which actions are wrong and communicates that information to s in the form of commands. But this threatens the claim that God is omnipotent and herein resides the problem with this proposal. The characteristic "omnipotent" refers to God's being all-powerful and capable of doing anything. The implications of this should not be overlooked since they are extremely significant. In short, this conclusion leads to the nullification of the theological conception of right and wrong since God is not omnipotent or all-powerful.

Remember that while this particular claim does not threaten the claim that God is omniscient or all knowing, it does threaten the claim that God is omnipotent or all-powerful.

Part 7 - Divine Command Theory and the Goodness of God

Horn 1 of the dilemma posed by Divine Command Theory argues that "Divine Command Theory is true and therefore right conduct is right because God commands it (or approves of it) and wrong conduct is wrong because God forbids or disapproves of it."

But this proposal leads to 2 problematic implications.

Implication (1) If right conduct is right because God commands it, then God's commands are morally arbitrary.

Implication (2) If right conduct is right because God commands it, then the doctrine of the goodness of God is empty or trivial.

We will first give consideration to implication 2.

The doctrine of the goodness of God says God is a morally good being and in fact God is a morally perfect being. If Divine Command theory is true, then no matter how God behaves he is morally good as long as he approves of himself. If this is the case then to say, "God is morally good" means that "God approves of himself."

The idea that God is morally good is a central doctrine of Christianity and seems to be a very important belief for most Christians. It is a primary reason why Christians believe that God is worthy of being worshipped because he is so good.

But if his goodness amounts to nothing more than his approving of himself it no longer seems a characteristic worth praising. If Divine Command Theory is true, then this very important doctrine turns out to be utterly and absolutely trivial. It seems that this understanding of the goodness of God is essentially nothing less than cosmic narcissism.

Part 6 - Divine Command Theory and the Arbitrariness of God

Horn 1 of the dilemma posed by Divine Command Theory argues that "Divine Command Theory is true and therefore right conduct is right because God commands it (or approves of it) and wrong conduct is wrong because God forbids or disapproves of it."

But this proposal leads to 2 problematic implications.

Implication (1) If right conduct is right because God commands it, then God's commands are morally arbitrary.

Implication (2) If right conduct is right because God commands it, then the doctrine of the goodness of God is empty or trivial.

We will first give consideration to implication 1.

If actions are right only because God commands them, then there is nothing to an action being moral other than God commanded it. This implies that God could command anything at all and it would be morally right. If God were to command rape or torture, then these things would become morally right.

If you are tempted to object by saying, "But God would never command rape or torture, you have to answer the question, why not? The answer cannot be, "Because rape and torture are wrong, after all, If Divine Command Theory is true (as you propose) then something is wrong only if God forbids it or disapproves of it and there is nothing actually to immorality besides being forbidden by God.

If Divine Command Theory is true, then God can have no moral reason for command us to do one thing rather than the exact opposite; in other words, God's commands turn out to be morally arbitrary or in other words God's commands are not based on moral reasons. He cannot have a moral reason not to command rape and torture and this is because those things are not moral or immoral unless he commands or forbids them.

Yes, God might have some other non-moral reason not to command those things. For example, his reason might be that he knows that doing such things will ultimately make most of us unhappy and he wants us to be happy. But if God were very different, e.g. were he not to love us, he might command us to do things that were harmful to others and ourselves. Were he to have commanded those things, then those things would have been morally good.

The philosophical problem here is that if Divine Command Theory is true, then no matter what God were to command or approve of that action would be morally good. It is irrelevant to whether God has actually commanded things that make most of us happy in the long run.

Part 5 - Divine Command Theory and the "Horns" of Plato's Dilemma

The two "horns" of Plato's dilemma are:

1. Divine Command Theory is true: right conduct is right because God commands it (or approves of it) and wrong conduct is wrong because God forbids or disapproves of it.

2. Divine Command Theory is false: God commands or approves of right conduct because it is right and forbids or disapproves of wrong conduct because it is wrong.

Interestingly, each option has consequences that most religious people will find troublesome.

There are at least two undesirable consequences of taking the position of Horn 1, "Divine Command Theory is true. Those undesirable consequences are:

1. God's commands are therefore morally arbitrary if Horn 1 is true. This requires some explanation.

2. The doctrine of the goodness of God is empty or trivial if Horn 1 is true. This also requires some explanation.

Each of these will be explored in the next section along with the implications of each of these troublesome consequences for Divine Command Theory.

Part 4 - Divine Command Theory and Plato's Dilemma

Plato (427-347 BC) posed a question relevant to Divine Command Theory. It occurs in one of his dialogues entitled the Euthyphro. The question for Plato was, "whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or is it holy because it is beloved of the gods?" In modern terms, the question is, "Is conduct moral because God commands or approves of it in which case Divine Command Theory is true or does God command or approve of moral conduct because it is moral in which case Divine Command Theory is false?

This is often referred to as "Plato's Dilemma." A "dilemma" is a situation in which you are required to accept one of two choices, but neither choice seems acceptable. The two choices are called "horns". There are three ways to respond to a dilemma. First, one may endorse the first horn of the dilemma. Second, one may endorse the second horn of the dilemma. Third, one may "go between the horns of the dilemma" by finding a third alternative that hasn't been considered yet and this is not always possible.

Part 3 Applied Ethics - Divine Command Theory and God

Divine Command Theory also implies three claims about God. First, it argues that God exists. This is an assumption at the heart of Divine Command Theory. Second, it contends that God has commanded or approved certain actions and that God has forbidden or disapproved others. Finally, Divine Command proposes that the actions that God has commanded or approved are morally right and that the one's that God has forbidden or disapproved are morally wrong.

If you do not believe all three of these things, then you will have to reject Divine Command Theory. However, just accepting these three things does not force you to accept Divine Command Theory. You can believe all three and still think that Divine Command Theory is false.

Part 2 Applied Ethics - How do we know what "God" wants from us ethically?

Many think that there not only is but that there must be a close connection between ethics and religion. They believe that religion is the foundation of ethics and that ethics is necessarily based on or grounded in religion. From this point of view, there is no morality without religion. Behind this belief about morality and religion is an assumed answer to the question of what makes an action morally right or morally wrong. This assumption can be expressed as follows: If an action is immoral, it is immoral because God has forbidden it, such as adultery, lying, murder, stealing, etc. If an action is morally right, it is morally because God has commanded it, such as being kind to others, giving to the poor, caring for the sick, etc.

Divine Command Theory (DCT) argues that morally right actions are right because God has commanded them or at least because God approves of them and that morally wrong actions are wrong because God has forbidden them or at least because God disapproves of them.

DCT implies that there are objective moral truths unlike Moral Relativism that argues to the contrary that there are no objective moral truths. DCT holds that statements like "Killing an innocent person is wrong" really are true apart from people's beliefs about morality. Suppose that DCT is true and that God has for forbidden killing innocent people; therefore, if God has forbidden this, then it is objectively true that he has forbidden it, and consequently it is objectively true that killing an innocent person is wrong.

Part 1 Applied Ethics - Is Religion required for the existence of ethics?

Scholars point out that there are two very different ways of viewing the world: the religious perspective and the non-religious perspective.

The Religious perspective contends that a loving, all-powerful God created the world in order to provide a home for us. We, in turn, were created in his image, to be his children. Therefore, the world is not devoid of meaning and purpose. It is, instead, the arena in which God's plans and purposes are realized. Many people in our society subscribe to this view or to something very similar to it. Many of these individuals who endorse the religious perspective conclude that without God there can be no ethics.

On the other hand there are those who adhere to the nonreligious perspective. An example of this view is the "scientific worldview" which was expressed by British philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) in his 1903 essay entitled, "A Free Man's Worship". For those in this camp, God's existence is not required to provide a basis for and for the existence of ethics or morality.

Plato - The Crito - Part 8 - 53a - 54e

Summary

The Laws of Athens conclude with an ominous warning as to what would happen if Socrates were to break them and escape. First, his friends would run the risk of banishment or worse for having helped him. Second, he would be unlikely to find welcome in any other town he visited. After all, what city with well-formed laws would welcome a man who had broken the laws of the city that had been his home for seventy years? If anything, he would be confirming Athens' verdict against him (that he corrupts the young), since a man who wantonly destroys the laws is certain to have a bad influence on the young. And if he were allowed into these cities, he could not resume his old way of life, wandering about and questioning citizens in order to improve them. How could he then maintain his teachings that goodness, justice, institutions, and laws are of the highest value to civilized people? His only option would be to live the life of a vagabond or runaway in some lawless part of Greece, where at best, he might have some laughs at the ridiculous lengths to which he had to go to escape Athens and civilization. All this would also show an unseemly greediness, clinging to life at such an old age.

The Laws then address the question of who should care for Socrates' sons, one of the strongest reasons Crito provided for Socrates to stay alive. Would Socrates be doing his sons any great favor by running away with them to some lawless land? And if he leaves them behind in Athens, what difference does it make if he is exiled in another land or dead? Surely, if his friends are at all good, they will ensure that his sons are well brought up, regardless of whether he is alive and exiled or dead.

Further, Socrates imagines the Laws as addressing themselves to the question of his fate after this life. He has lived a just and pious life, so he should fare well when he comes before the judges of the underworld. However, if he were to escape now, not only would he live in a lawless land, despised by his fellow-citizens, but he would also suffer in the underworld for having acted unjustly. As it is, he has been wronged by the people of Athens, not by the Laws, and will die a victim who has lived well and been killed unjustly. But if he returns this injustice, and hurts the Laws because of the wrongs done him by the people, he will be acting unjustly and the laws of Hades will punish him accordingly.

Socrates claims to hear the voice of the Laws of Athens clearly, and that they have persuaded him to stay. Crito accepts Socrates' words and makes no further effort to persuade him to leave.

Commentary

If we were not satisfied with the Laws' appeal to justice, their prediction of Socrates' possible life in exile seems quite convincing. Socrates is very explicit in ##The Apology## about the importance of his way of life. In his famous statement that "the unexamined life is not worth living," Socrates suggests that life only has meaning and importance through the philosophical process of questioning oneself and others. If he were to flee Athens and live in a lawless land, all the reasons he currently has for wanting to be alive would disappear. He would be unable to engage in any kind of philosophical discourse, he would be banned from any just and reasonable city, and his sons would either have to be raised in this state of lawlessness or he would have to be separated from them permanently. Also, consistency is a very important virtue to Socrates: he has willingly been sentenced to death rather than be inconsistent in his behavior or way of life. To flee now would be to succumb to inconsistency and make a mockery of his life up to now.

Socrates' discussion of the underworld is a bit puzzling. As we discussed earlier, as he approaches death, he seems to gain greater confidence as to the nature of the afterlife, so it should not surprise us that he now speaks of the judges of the underworld (when in The Apology he denied that anyone could know what happens after death). What seems odd is again this distinction between the people who have accused and sentenced him and the Laws by which they have sentenced him. Plato would like to say that the Laws themselves are just, but that the people have acted unjustly. The reason Socrates must stay in prison is that he must show deference to the Laws, not to the people. Plato seems to want to put the blame for Socrates' imprisonment and execution on the people, saying that Socrates will die a victim who has been wronged unjustly. But if the people are the ones who punish him, why is it the Laws that suffer if Socrates escapes? If the Laws are destroyed if Socrates escapes, that would suggest that it is through the Laws that he is imprisoned. But if he is imprisoned wrongly, and if this is in accordance with the Laws, then it would seem that the Laws are unjust and thus deserve to be broken.

Plato is trying to mark a distinction between the Laws themselves and the legislators, one of his reasons for trying to embody the Laws in a voice distinct from any particular person or people. But if we unpack Plato's argument, it seems that there must be a contradiction somewhere. To review: Socrates is imprisoned either justly or unjustly. If he is imprisoned justly, that means he has done wrong and deserves to be punished, a claim that Plato would never want to make. Therefore, he is imprisoned unjustly. If he is imprisoned unjustly, he is being wronged either by the Laws or by the people. Again, it is clear that Plato wants to argue that he is being wronged by the people. Now if the people are wronging Socrates unjustly, that means that they are wronging him in a way that is not in accordance with the Laws. Thus, Socrates should not be breaking the Laws in trying to break free from prison.

The only possible answer is a rather tyrannical one, that the Laws are good and are created for good purposes, but must be obeyed no matter what, and it is up to the people to carry that out. The laws against corrupting the young and preaching false deities are just, and if one is found guilty, one ought to be punished. The problem is that the people have not carried out the application of these laws in a just manner by condemning Socrates. Nonetheless, trial by jury is a part of the Laws; the Laws are inflexible, and if Socrates is found guilty by jury then he is guilty according to the Laws. This picture of the Laws, however, does not seem as just or as reasonable as one might like.

Plato - The Crito - Part 6 - 50a - 51c

Summary

In order to clarify his position to Crito, Socrates depicts the Laws of Athens confronting and questioning him about his desire to escape. The Laws point out to Socrates that if he does indeed decide to disobey them and escape, he will effectively be destroying the Laws, and the whole State as well. If private individuals can disobey and nullify laws when they please, the Laws will no longer have any effect or any importance, and so the State will fall into chaos. The State is only held together by the Laws, and the Laws are only binding if they hold no matter what the circumstances. If Socrates should suggest that the State has committed an injustice against him by making a faulty judgment at his trial, he imagines the Laws would reply that he had agreed to abide by whatever judgments the State should make. After all, the Laws are not to be accepted piecemeal, but either entirely or not at all.

The Laws then point out the role they have played in shaping Socrates, and how important their relationship is. It was through the Laws that his parents were married and were able to give birth to Socrates. The Laws then provided for his upbringing and education, ensuring that he received adequate training in music and gymnastics. From this, the Laws suggest that their relationship with Socrates is similar to that of a father with his son, or of a master with his slave. In these relationships, the son or slave has no right to retaliate if he is punished for wrongdoing, and certainly should not destroy his father or master simply in order to protect himself. The Laws go even further to suggest that one's ties to one's country are even stronger than one's ties to one's family, and so it is even more important to respect the judgments of the Laws. Just as one should be willing to suffer and die for one's country in battle rather than flee to save oneself, one should also be willing to suffer and die according to the Laws rather than to destroy them by trying to save oneself. If Socrates is to avoid being executed, he must persuade the Laws that they punish him unjustly rather than simply fleeing, which would disrespect and destroy the Laws.

Commentary

The portrayal of the Laws of Athens as a voice that enters into dialogue with Socrates is not only a stylistic choice, but one that deeply informs the arguments that Socrates makes. Justice, for the ancient Greeks, consisted in obligations to other people: an unjust action is one that is detrimental to others. Thus, for Socrates (or perhaps Plato) to argue that it would be unjust for him to leave his cell, he must be clear against whom an injustice would be committed. He cannot simply be acting unjustly, but must rather be injuring someone in particular.

Certainly, if ##The Apology## is any indication, Plato and other followers of Socrates have little sympathy for Meletus, and the others who brought Socrates to trial and then sentenced him to death. Plato would not want to suggest that Socrates somehow has an obligation to his accusers to stay, and that he would be behaving unjustly toward them if he escaped. The question then, is whom would he be behaving unjustly toward in escaping? The only possible answer is the State itself and the Laws of the state. But since one can only act unjustly toward another person, it is necessary for Socrates to personify the Laws of Athens in order to justify his position.

Also worth noting is that Socrates personifies the Laws in the role of parents. They were responsible for his birth, and for raising and educating him. His real parents are effectively reduced to being agents of the Laws. By doing this, Socrates greatly clarifies his obligation to the Laws. While the Laws may seem like abstract, ancient, and distant entities to which one is bound only for fear of punishment, Socrates portrays them as living beings that have nurtured and raised him, who will suffer if he disregards them. With this new twist, it becomes far more problematic to justify breaking the Laws.

On the other hand, it is clear (from The Apology) that Socrates' trial was far from fair, and that he is not truly guilty of the crimes he has been condemned for. As a result, we have every reason to believe that Socrates himself has been wronged. Some scholars have suggested that in allowing himself to die, Socrates is complacently accepting an unjust application of the Laws, and in so doing is allowing the Laws to fall into disrepute. Socrates' method of elenchus, or cross-examination, which is central to his philosophy, consists in showing his interlocutors that they are mistaken in their claims. Surely this method should apply to his parents, or to the Laws as well. If they are mistaken in punishing him, he should not have to abide by their punishment, but should rather expose their injustice, doing both himself and them a favor.

One might reply in Plato's defense that the Laws do not claim that they should be obeyed no matter what, but rather that they must be persuaded of their mistake rather than simply disobeyed. Thus, if Socrates can persuade the Laws that he is wrongfully imprisoned, he should be free to leave without acting unjustly. The clear difficulty here is one of distinguishing between the Laws themselves and the human accusers who have sentenced Socrates. In The Apology, Socrates failed to convince his accusers that he was innocent, and they used the Laws to sentence him to death. Is there any way for Socrates to persuade the Laws that he should be allowed to go free without also having to persuade his accusers? And if he must persuade his accusers in order to change the Laws, that would suggest that the two are the same: if we believe that his accusers have acted unjustly in sentencing him, then the Laws might also be guilty of injustice. Clearly, Plato's choice to personify the Laws of Athens is not without problems.

Plato - The Crito - Part 7 - 51c - 53a

Summary

Socrates continues the speech of the Laws of Athens by appealing to a kind of social contract that exists between the Laws and the citizens. The Laws, as Socrates already suggested, have given him birth, have raised him and educated him, and have shared the wealth of Athens with him and his fellow citizens. All this the Laws do for their citizens before they even reach manhood. Upon attaining manhood, the age at which citizens are meant to be able to think for themselves, they are free to review the Laws and the State, and if they do not like what they see, they are free to take their property and go wherever they please. However, if they choose to stay in Athens, they are actively submitting themselves to the Laws of Athens, and must abide by them no matter what. So the Laws are willing to allow discontents to leave Athens without forfeit, and are willing to be persuaded to change, but if one does not leave and does not persuade the Laws to change, then one must abide by them. If Socrates were to try to escape he would be breaking the Laws rather than following any of these just actions.

Furthermore, the Laws point out, Socrates would be more guilty than most because he has, until now, endorsed Athenian Law and the Athenian way of life. Socrates has only left Athens on a handful of occasions--once to attend a festival, and the other times to do military service in wars on behalf of the state. Unlike most Athenians, Socrates has never traveled or acquainted himself with the customs or laws of other people: he has been perfectly happy in Athens. Also, at his trial (recorded in ##The Apology##), Socrates dismissed the possibility of exile, saying he'd prefer to die than live outside of Athens. It would be strangely inconsistent for him to refuse exile when it was offered to him freely, and then to flee Athens when the Laws no longer permit him to do so.

The Laws conclude, then, that Socrates has no reason to break the Laws now: he has had every opportunity to leave or disagree, and the Laws have made no effort to deceive him in any way. In fact, until now, Socrates has expressed great satisfaction with the Laws. If Socrates is to avoid becoming a laughing-stock, he must stick by his agreement with the Laws now as he has always done.

Commentary

Plato introduces a kind of social contract that binds the citizens to the Laws. We should be wary, though, of equating this social contract theory with our modern, liberal notion of the social contract, as presented by Rousseau. In Rousseau's idea of the social contract, the state (or sovereign) is a direct consequence of the general will of the people, and the social contract is an agreement between citizens to live in harmony together under laws. For Plato, the agreement is not made between citizens, but between the individual citizen and the Laws. As we saw in the previous section, the personification of the Laws is a crucial move in Plato's argument, as it allows an agreement to exist directly between the Laws and the people. We might characterize the difference between Plato and Rousseau by saying that for Plato, the Laws are real entities (an idea that might follow from his Theory of Forms), whereas for Rousseau, they are abstract constructions made by and for the people.

The idea behind Plato's social contract is that any citizen who reaches the age of manhood should be able to decide for himself whether or not the Laws suit him, and if they do not, he should be free to leave the city. The age of manhood in Athens was set at seventeen, at which time youths would undergo an examination which would formally confirm their citizenship. Those who become citizens have thus explicitly agreed to obey the Laws of the city, and anything they do to break them will be a breach of this agreement.

However, in presenting the Laws as commands to be obeyed, Plato is portraying the Laws as quite tyrannical. If we are to follow Plato's analogy and treat the Laws like parents in a position of great authority, they are the kind of parents who expect their children to do whatever they say. Granted, the Laws can be persuaded into modification, but even so, the relationship between the citizens and the Laws is one of obedience and commandment. The Athenians were fiercely proud of their democracy, one in which justice and law were agreed upon by the majority. Plato's portrayal of the Laws sees Athens more as an enlightened dictatorship, where the people do not create the law, but merely live under its benevolent power. w(Interestingly, this view of the state is more like the ideal state Plato envisions in the Republic, and less like the actual historical Athens.)

Plato - The Crito - Part 5 - 46b - 50a

Summary

In response to Crito's plea that Socrates agree to be rescued, Socrates answers that Crito's enthusiasm is only well exhibited if it is right and proper. When considering arguments, Socrates suggests, one ought only to take heed of those that seem right upon reflection. It would be wrong for Socrates to abandon the arguments he propounded in the past simply because his life is now in danger. If he is to change his behavior now, it should be for reasons other than his impending death.

Crito agrees with Socrates that not all opinions are of equal value--that some are sound and some are flawed--and that one should follow the opinions of the wise, which are sound, and not of the foolish, which are flawed. The opinions of the wise in any matter come from experts in those matters. Thus, if a man considered everyone's advice regarding his health, he might not benefit, but if he listens only to his doctor, he would be much better off. Someone who disobeys or ignores the advice of his doctor will surely suffer, and his body will deteriorate.

Analogously, then, Socrates refers to the part of us which is harmed by unjust actions and benefited by just actions. (This "part of us," left ambiguous here, is referred to as the soul in later works of Plato's.) Socrates suggests that this part of us is far more valuable than the body, and that life would hardly be worth living if it were damaged. In this case, it is of even greater importance not to take anyone and everyone's advice, but to listen only to experts who know best how to handle such matters. Crito, then, is wrong to worry about public opinion regarding matters of justice: he should ignore it altogether, paying heed only to those who are wise about justice. In response to Crito's objection that, though they may be ignorant, the public has the power to put a man to death, Socrates replies that this has no bearing on the argument whatsoever. After all, Socrates is not concerned with what he must do in order to live, but what he must do in order to live well--that is, honorably and justly. Thus, Socrates and Crito should not worry about the public or about Socrates' sons or anything else, but should ask themselves only whether or not arranging an escape would be just and honorable.

Agreed upon this point, Socrates moves to a variation of one of his more famous claims: that no one can ever knowingly do wrong. Here, he suggests that one should never, under any circumstances, knowingly commit an injustice. So even in retaliation, it is wrong to inflict an injury upon someone who has wronged you, since inflicting injury is a form of injustice. Socrates also persuades Crito that one does injury, and therefore injustice, in breaking an agreement. His conclusion, then, is that if he leaves his prison without first persuading the state to let him go, he is breaking his agreement to abide by the laws of the state, and is thus causing the state an injury. Crito confesses that Socrates' reasoning has left him confused.

Commentary

The most interesting and most famous part of the Crito comes in the sections that follow, where Socrates imagines the voice of the Laws of Athens explaining why he should stay in prison and face death. By personifying the laws in this speech, Socrates will treat the agreement between the individual and the state in the same way as he might treat an agreement between two individuals. Even in this section, we get a sense of Socrates' rhetorical thrust in several cases of personification. At 46b, he refers to arguments as his "friends," suggesting that he shouldn't listen to the advice of all his "friends," but only to the sound ones. At 48a, he speaks of the truth is as being on the side of the expert in affairs of justice. Finally, at 49e-50a, Socrates discusses the question of persuading the state to let him go, and whether he would be breaking his agreement with the state if he escaped. In these acts of personification, Socrates casts all political and ethical matters as an interaction between two people. Political matters, in spite of their complexity, are just the same as personal matters except one is dealing with one's relationship with the state and its laws rather than with a close friend.

A salient issue in the Crito is the question of how consistent it is with other Platonic dialogues--the early dialogues in particular. A number of possible inconsistencies raise themselves in this section (though the most important ones are raised later, in the speech of the Laws of Athens). At 46b, Socrates speaks of "the arguments which I used to expound in the past," a claim which sounds more like Plato than Socrates. Socrates consistently claims that he has no arguments of his own, that he is only interested in exposing the weaknesses of others' arguments. At the same time, his claims that no one ever knowingly does wrong, or that knowledge is virtue, do seem like arguments, and here he seems to accept this. Later in his career, Plato would use the character of Socrates to argue for many other doctrines as well.

In Socrates' discussion of injustice, we find a number of familiar themes: that there are experts in ethical matters and that one should not take just anyone's opinion as though it were of equal value, and that no one ever knowingly or willingly does wrong. However, at the same time, his equation of doing injury with injustice is again questionable. (Elsewhere, in the Gorgias, it is argued that an injury done to a wrongdoer in punishment is for the good of the wrongdoer.) Here, Socrates seems to be firm in his opinion that no injurious action can be just.

Plato - The Crito - Part 4 - 44b - 46a

Summary

Alarmed by Socrates' willing acceptance of his execution, Crito hastens to explain that he can and must help Socrates to escape. All it would take is a few appropriate bribes, which would not be at all difficult to manage. Crito explains that if Socrates does not escape, no one would believe that he had willingly faced execution. Instead, Crito would be accused of not having helped Socrates, and of valuing his money more than his friend's life. Socrates suggests that one should only take heed of the opinions of sensible people who will see things exactly as they turned out. To this, Crito replies that popular opinion is a powerful and dangerous force--that Socrates' own trial and sentencing are enough to suggest that the public has an unlimited capacity for doing harm. Socrates disagrees with Crito, suggesting that it is a great shame that the public does not have an unlimited capacity for doing harm, since they would then also have an unlimited capacity for doing good. However, Socrates suggests, the public cannot make a man either wise or foolish--what they achieve is determined by chance alone.

Crito next addresses the question of whether Socrates is unwilling to escape for fear of inconveniencing or endangering his friends. He makes it clear that he and all Socrates' friends are more than willing to face any kind of danger--besides which, the bribe is not an impossible sum, and there are quite a few wealthy men who can put up the money. Crito also argues that Socrates should not be afraid of living in exile, as he suggested in his defense speech (see ##The Apology##, 37a-38c): Crito has many friends, particularly in Thessaly, who would be delighted to take in Socrates and protect him.

Not only would it be easy to rescue Socrates, Crito suggests, but Socrates is acting unjustly by remaining in prison. In refusing to escape, he is treating himself as his enemies want to treat him, and so is wronging himself. Further, he will be deserting his sons before their upbringing and education has been completed. In accepting an unnecessary execution, Socrates is willingly abandoning his children and his responsibility to them. Without him, they will receive the second-rate upbringing and education that is normally reserved for orphans. A man such as Socrates, who has dedicated his life to pursuing the good, must surely not abandon his sons like this.

Lastly, Crito suggests again that Socrates' behavior will reflect badly upon Socrates himself as well as his friends, making them all appear to be cowards. Throughout, Socrates seems to have made no effort to resist his condemnation and execution: he came to court willingly, he defended himself in a brash and obviously unsuccessful manner, and now he is unwilling even to be rescued by his friends. Crito urges Socrates to agree to a ready plan to smuggle Socrates out of prison that night. If they don't act now, it will be too late.

Commentary

Crito is right in suggesting that Socrates has done absolutely nothing to avoid being executed. In fact, the authorities of Athens probably didn't want to execute him at all, hoping only to silence or exile him. Socrates could probably have avoided the whole affair by not coming to court to defend himself. And again, in court, as we witness in The Apology, he made no effort whatsoever to apologize for his actions. When found guilty, he firmly rejected the options of prison, exile, or censure, insisting that if they would let him live, they must let him live as he had always done. Thus, Socrates forced the hand of the Athenian jurors, putting them in a position where they must either execute him or let him go free. Though they may not have wanted to execute him, Socrates left them no choice.

Now, the authorities would probably be as eager as Socrates' friends to have Socrates escape and live out his years in exile. It is only Socrates' own principled stubbornness that leads to his death.

Many of Crito's arguments are quite sensible and convincing. In particular, his arguments that Socrates is behaving unjustly in allowing himself to be executed appeal precisely to some of Socrates' own thoughts. Central to Socrates' teaching is the association of goodness with knowledge and evil with ignorance. One of his more famous doctrines is that no one ever knowingly does wrong. Thus, Socrates' stated purpose in life is to bring people to greater wisdom by questioning them and revealing their ignorance. In improving people's wisdom, he makes them more virtuous. The very reason that Socrates rejects the suggestion that he abandon his teaching and live free is that he would then no longer be doing any good for the world at large, and would be abandoning his duty to the gods. Crito's appeal regarding Socrates' sons thus plays on that theme. If Socrates can improve people through his teaching and if that is his purpose in life, he would be letting his sons down unjustly if he died now, abandoning them to ignorance.

We could also read a kind of Socratic reasoning into the argument that, by submitting to his enemies, Socrates would only be helping them to do wrong. If Socrates is allowing himself to be punished just as his accusers would like, Socrates is harming himself in according himself with their intentions. If no one can knowingly do wrong, Socrates must be displaying ignorance, and therefore evil, in allowing himself to be wronged. Crito's attitude can also be understood in terms of a more traditional Greek notion, aired by Polemarchus in the first book of the Republic, that justice consists in helping one's friends and harming one's enemies. Crito here does not endorse harming Socrates' enemies, but certainly sees helping them as wrong.

One brief reply to Crito's arguments in this section comes early, in Socrates' and Crito's discussion of the public's capacity for doing harm. There, Socrates suggests that the people cannot make a man wise or foolish; they do not have an unlimited capacity for doing harm or good. Instead, he suggests, they act somewhat at random without any great capacity for good or evil at all. Thus, Crito's suggestion that the public is wronging Socrates, and that Socrates is therefore wronging himself in not fighting the verdict, becomes questionable. Socrates might be able to reply that he is not being wronged at all--that it is just fate and circumstance that have led to his execution.

Plato - The Crito - Part 5 - 46b - 50a

Summary

In response to Crito's plea that Socrates agree to be rescued, Socrates answers that Crito's enthusiasm is only well exhibited if it is right and proper. When considering arguments, Socrates suggests, one ought only to take heed of those that seem right upon reflection. It would be wrong for Socrates to abandon the arguments he propounded in the past simply because his life is now in danger. If he is to change his behavior now, it should be for reasons other than his impending death.

Crito agrees with Socrates that not all opinions are of equal value--that some are sound and some are flawed--and that one should follow the opinions of the wise, which are sound, and not of the foolish, which are flawed. The opinions of the wise in any matter come from experts in those matters. Thus, if a man considered everyone's advice regarding his health, he might not benefit, but if he listens only to his doctor, he would be much better off. Someone who disobeys or ignores the advice of his doctor will surely suffer, and his body will deteriorate.

Analogously, then, Socrates refers to the part of us which is harmed by unjust actions and benefited by just actions. (This "part of us," left ambiguous here, is referred to as the soul in later works of Plato's.) Socrates suggests that this part of us is far more valuable than the body, and that life would hardly be worth living if it were damaged. In this case, it is of even greater importance not to take anyone and everyone's advice, but to listen only to experts who know best how to handle such matters. Crito, then, is wrong to worry about public opinion regarding matters of justice: he should ignore it altogether, paying heed only to those who are wise about justice. In response to Crito's objection that, though they may be ignorant, the public has the power to put a man to death, Socrates replies that this has no bearing on the argument whatsoever. After all, Socrates is not concerned with what he must do in order to live, but what he must do in order to live well--that is, honorably and justly. Thus, Socrates and Crito should not worry about the public or about Socrates' sons or anything else, but should ask themselves only whether or not arranging an escape would be just and honorable.

Agreed upon this point, Socrates moves to a variation of one of his more famous claims: that no one can ever knowingly do wrong. Here, he suggests that one should never, under any circumstances, knowingly commit an injustice. So even in retaliation, it is wrong to inflict an injury upon someone who has wronged you, since inflicting injury is a form of injustice. Socrates also persuades Crito that one does injury, and therefore injustice, in breaking an agreement. His conclusion, then, is that if he leaves his prison without first persuading the state to let him go, he is breaking his agreement to abide by the laws of the state, and is thus causing the state an injury. Crito confesses that Socrates' reasoning has left him confused.

Commentary

The most interesting and most famous part of the Crito comes in the sections that follow, where Socrates imagines the voice of the Laws of Athens explaining why he should stay in prison and face death. By personifying the laws in this speech, Socrates will treat the agreement between the individual and the state in the same way as he might treat an agreement between two individuals. Even in this section, we get a sense of Socrates' rhetorical thrust in several cases of personification. At 46b, he refers to arguments as his "friends," suggesting that he shouldn't listen to the advice of all his "friends," but only to the sound ones. At 48a, he speaks of the truth is as being on the side of the expert in affairs of justice. Finally, at 49e-50a, Socrates discusses the question of persuading the state to let him go, and whether he would be breaking his agreement with the state if he escaped. In these acts of personification, Socrates casts all political and ethical matters as an interaction between two people. Political matters, in spite of their complexity, are just the same as personal matters except one is dealing with one's relationship with the state and its laws rather than with a close friend.

A salient issue in the Crito is the question of how consistent it is with other Platonic dialogues--the early dialogues in particular. A number of possible inconsistencies raise themselves in this section (though the most important ones are raised later, in the speech of the Laws of Athens). At 46b, Socrates speaks of "the arguments which I used to expound in the past," a claim which sounds more like Plato than Socrates. Socrates consistently claims that he has no arguments of his own, that he is only interested in exposing the weaknesses of others' arguments. At the same time, his claims that no one ever knowingly does wrong, or that knowledge is virtue, do seem like arguments, and here he seems to accept this. Later in his career, Plato would use the character of Socrates to argue for many other doctrines as well.

In Socrates' discussion of injustice, we find a number of familiar themes: that there are experts in ethical matters and that one should not take just anyone's opinion as though it were of equal value, and that no one ever knowingly or willingly does wrong. However, at the same time, his equation of doing injury with injustice is again questionable. (Elsewhere, in the Gorgias, it is argued that an injury done to a wrongdoer in punishment is for the good of the wrongdoer.) Here, Socrates seems to be firm in his opinion that no injurious action can be just.

Plato - The Crito - Part 6 - 50a - 51c

Summary

In order to clarify his position to Crito, Socrates depicts the Laws of Athens confronting and questioning him about his desire to escape. The Laws point out to Socrates that if he does indeed decide to disobey them and escape, he will effectively be destroying the Laws, and the whole State as well. If private individuals can disobey and nullify laws when they please, the Laws will no longer have any effect or any importance, and so the State will fall into chaos. The State is only held together by the Laws, and the Laws are only binding if they hold no matter what the circumstances. If Socrates should suggest that the State has committed an injustice against him by making a faulty judgment at his trial, he imagines the Laws would reply that he had agreed to abide by whatever judgments the State should make. After all, the Laws are not to be accepted piecemeal, but either entirely or not at all.

The Laws then point out the role they have played in shaping Socrates, and how important their relationship is. It was through the Laws that his parents were married and were able to give birth to Socrates. The Laws then provided for his upbringing and education, ensuring that he received adequate training in music and gymnastics. From this, the Laws suggest that their relationship with Socrates is similar to that of a father with his son, or of a master with his slave. In these relationships, the son or slave has no right to retaliate if he is punished for wrongdoing, and certainly should not destroy his father or master simply in order to protect himself. The Laws go even further to suggest that one's ties to one's country are even stronger than one's ties to one's family, and so it is even more important to respect the judgments of the Laws. Just as one should be willing to suffer and die for one's country in battle rather than flee to save oneself, one should also be willing to suffer and die according to the Laws rather than to destroy them by trying to save oneself. If Socrates is to avoid being executed, he must persuade the Laws that they punish him unjustly rather than simply fleeing, which would disrespect and destroy the Laws.

Commentary

The portrayal of the Laws of Athens as a voice that enters into dialogue with Socrates is not only a stylistic choice, but one that deeply informs the arguments that Socrates makes. Justice, for the ancient Greeks, consisted in obligations to other people: an unjust action is one that is detrimental to others. Thus, for Socrates (or perhaps Plato) to argue that it would be unjust for him to leave his cell, he must be clear against whom an injustice would be committed. He cannot simply be acting unjustly, but must rather be injuring someone in particular.

Certainly, if ##The Apology## is any indication, Plato and other followers of Socrates have little sympathy for Meletus, and the others who brought Socrates to trial and then sentenced him to death. Plato would not want to suggest that Socrates somehow has an obligation to his accusers to stay, and that he would be behaving unjustly toward them if he escaped. The question then, is whom would he be behaving unjustly toward in escaping? The only possible answer is the State itself and the Laws of the state. But since one can only act unjustly toward another person, it is necessary for Socrates to personify the Laws of Athens in order to justify his position.

Also worth noting is that Socrates personifies the Laws in the role of parents. They were responsible for his birth, and for raising and educating him. His real parents are effectively reduced to being agents of the Laws. By doing this, Socrates greatly clarifies his obligation to the Laws. While the Laws may seem like abstract, ancient, and distant entities to which one is bound only for fear of punishment, Socrates portrays them as living beings that have nurtured and raised him, who will suffer if he disregards them. With this new twist, it becomes far more problematic to justify breaking the Laws.

On the other hand, it is clear (from The Apology) that Socrates' trial was far from fair, and that he is not truly guilty of the crimes he has been condemned for. As a result, we have every reason to believe that Socrates himself has been wronged. Some scholars have suggested that in allowing himself to die, Socrates is complacently accepting an unjust application of the Laws, and in so doing is allowing the Laws to fall into disrepute. Socrates' method of elenchus, or cross-examination, which is central to his philosophy, consists in showing his interlocutors that they are mistaken in their claims. Surely this method should apply to his parents, or to the Laws as well. If they are mistaken in punishing him, he should not have to abide by their punishment, but should rather expose their injustice, doing both himself and them a favor.

One might reply in Plato's defense that the Laws do not claim that they should be obeyed no matter what, but rather that they must be persuaded of their mistake rather than simply disobeyed. Thus, if Socrates can persuade the Laws that he is wrongfully imprisoned, he should be free to leave without acting unjustly. The clear difficulty here is one of distinguishing between the Laws themselves and the human accusers who have sentenced Socrates. In The Apology, Socrates failed to convince his accusers that he was innocent, and they used the Laws to sentence him to death. Is there any way for Socrates to persuade the Laws that he should be allowed to go free without also having to persuade his accusers? And if he must persuade his accusers in order to change the Laws, that would suggest that the two are the same: if we believe that his accusers have acted unjustly in sentencing him, then the Laws might also be guilty of injustice. Clearly, Plato's choice to personify the Laws of Athens is not without problems.

Plato - The Crito - Part 7 - 51c - 53a

Summary

Socrates continues the speech of the Laws of Athens by appealing to a kind of social contract that exists between the Laws and the citizens. The Laws, as Socrates already suggested, have given him birth, have raised him and educated him, and have shared the wealth of Athens with him and his fellow citizens. All this the Laws do for their citizens before they even reach manhood. Upon attaining manhood, the age at which citizens are meant to be able to think for themselves, they are free to review the Laws and the State, and if they do not like what they see, they are free to take their property and go wherever they please. However, if they choose to stay in Athens, they are actively submitting themselves to the Laws of Athens, and must abide by them no matter what. So the Laws are willing to allow discontents to leave Athens without forfeit, and are willing to be persuaded to change, but if one does not leave and does not persuade the Laws to change, then one must abide by them. If Socrates were to try to escape he would be breaking the Laws rather than following any of these just actions.

Furthermore, the Laws point out, Socrates would be more guilty than most because he has, until now, endorsed Athenian Law and the Athenian way of life. Socrates has only left Athens on a handful of occasions--once to attend a festival, and the other times to do military service in wars on behalf of the state. Unlike most Athenians, Socrates has never traveled or acquainted himself with the customs or laws of other people: he has been perfectly happy in Athens. Also, at his trial (recorded in ##The Apology##), Socrates dismissed the possibility of exile, saying he'd prefer to die than live outside of Athens. It would be strangely inconsistent for him to refuse exile when it was offered to him freely, and then to flee Athens when the Laws no longer permit him to do so.

The Laws conclude, then, that Socrates has no reason to break the Laws now: he has had every opportunity to leave or disagree, and the Laws have made no effort to deceive him in any way. In fact, until now, Socrates has expressed great satisfaction with the Laws. If Socrates is to avoid becoming a laughing-stock, he must stick by his agreement with the Laws now as he has always done.

Commentary

Plato introduces a kind of social contract that binds the citizens to the Laws. We should be wary, though, of equating this social contract theory with our modern, liberal notion of the social contract, as presented by Rousseau. In Rousseau's idea of the social contract, the state (or sovereign) is a direct consequence of the general will of the people, and the social contract is an agreement between citizens to live in harmony together under laws. For Plato, the agreement is not made between citizens, but between the individual citizen and the Laws. As we saw in the previous section, the personification of the Laws is a crucial move in Plato's argument, as it allows an agreement to exist directly between the Laws and the people. We might characterize the difference between Plato and Rousseau by saying that for Plato, the Laws are real entities (an idea that might follow from his Theory of Forms), whereas for Rousseau, they are abstract constructions made by and for the people.

The idea behind Plato's social contract is that any citizen who reaches the age of manhood should be able to decide for himself whether or not the Laws suit him, and if they do not, he should be free to leave the city. The age of manhood in Athens was set at seventeen, at which time youths would undergo an examination which would formally confirm their citizenship. Those who become citizens have thus explicitly agreed to obey the Laws of the city, and anything they do to break them will be a breach of this agreement.

However, in presenting the Laws as commands to be obeyed, Plato is portraying the Laws as quite tyrannical. If we are to follow Plato's analogy and treat the Laws like parents in a position of great authority, they are the kind of parents who expect their children to do whatever they say. Granted, the Laws can be persuaded into modification, but even so, the relationship between the citizens and the Laws is one of obedience and commandment. The Athenians were fiercely proud of their democracy, one in which justice and law were agreed upon by the majority. Plato's portrayal of the Laws sees Athens more as an enlightened dictatorship, where the people do not create the law, but merely live under its benevolent power. w(Interestingly, this view of the state is more like the ideal state Plato envisions in the Republic, and less like the actual historical Athens.)


Plato - The Crito - Part 8 - 53a - 54e

Summary

The Laws of Athens conclude with an ominous warning as to what would happen if Socrates were to break them and escape. First, his friends would run the risk of banishment or worse for having helped him. Second, he would be unlikely to find welcome in any other town he visited. After all, what city with well-formed laws would welcome a man who had broken the laws of the city that had been his home for seventy years? If anything, he would be confirming Athens' verdict against him (that he corrupts the young), since a man who wantonly destroys the laws is certain to have a bad influence on the young. And if he were allowed into these cities, he could not resume his old way of life, wandering about and questioning citizens in order to improve them. How could he then maintain his teachings that goodness, justice, institutions, and laws are of the highest value to civilized people? His only option would be to live the life of a vagabond or runaway in some lawless part of Greece, where at best, he might have some laughs at the ridiculous lengths to which he had to go to escape Athens and civilization. All this would also show an unseemly greediness, clinging to life at such an old age.

The Laws then address the question of who should care for Socrates' sons, one of the strongest reasons Crito provided for Socrates to stay alive. Would Socrates be doing his sons any great favor by running away with them to some lawless land? And if he leaves them behind in Athens, what difference does it make if he is exiled in another land or dead? Surely, if his friends are at all good, they will ensure that his sons are well brought up, regardless of whether he is alive and exiled or dead.

Further, Socrates imagines the Laws as addressing themselves to the question of his fate after this life. He has lived a just and pious life, so he should fare well when he comes before the judges of the underworld. However, if he were to escape now, not only would he live in a lawless land, despised by his fellow-citizens, but he would also suffer in the underworld for having acted unjustly. As it is, he has been wronged by the people of Athens, not by the Laws, and will die a victim who has lived well and been killed unjustly. But if he returns this injustice, and hurts the Laws because of the wrongs done him by the people, he will be acting unjustly and the laws of Hades will punish him accordingly.

Socrates claims to hear the voice of the Laws of Athens clearly, and that they have persuaded him to stay. Crito accepts Socrates' words and makes no further effort to persuade him to leave.

Commentary

If we were not satisfied with the Laws' appeal to justice, their prediction of Socrates' possible life in exile seems quite convincing. Socrates is very explicit in ##The Apology## about the importance of his way of life. In his famous statement that "the unexamined life is not worth living," Socrates suggests that life only has meaning and importance through the philosophical process of questioning oneself and others. If he were to flee Athens and live in a lawless land, all the reasons he currently has for wanting to be alive would disappear. He would be unable to engage in any kind of philosophical discourse, he would be banned from any just and reasonable city, and his sons would either have to be raised in this state of lawlessness or he would have to be separated from them permanently. Also, consistency is a very important virtue to Socrates: he has willingly been sentenced to death rather than be inconsistent in his behavior or way of life. To flee now would be to succumb to inconsistency and make a mockery of his life up to now.

Socrates' discussion of the underworld is a bit puzzling. As we discussed earlier, as he approaches death, he seems to gain greater confidence as to the nature of the afterlife, so it should not surprise us that he now speaks of the judges of the underworld (when in The Apology he denied that anyone could know what happens after death). What seems odd is again this distinction between the people who have accused and sentenced him and the Laws by which they have sentenced him. Plato would like to say that the Laws themselves are just, but that the people have acted unjustly. The reason Socrates must stay in prison is that he must show deference to the Laws, not to the people. Plato seems to want to put the blame for Socrates' imprisonment and execution on the people, saying that Socrates will die a victim who has been wronged unjustly. But if the people are the ones who punish him, why is it the Laws that suffer if Socrates escapes? If the Laws are destroyed if Socrates escapes, that would suggest that it is through the Laws that he is imprisoned. But if he is imprisoned wrongly, and if this is in accordance with the Laws, then it would seem that the Laws are unjust and thus deserve to be broken.

Plato is trying to mark a distinction between the Laws themselves and the legislators, one of his reasons for trying to embody the Laws in a voice distinct from any particular person or people. But if we unpack Plato's argument, it seems that there must be a contradiction somewhere. To review: Socrates is imprisoned either justly or unjustly. If he is imprisoned justly, that means he has done wrong and deserves to be punished, a claim that Plato would never want to make. Therefore, he is imprisoned unjustly. If he is imprisoned unjustly, he is being wronged either by the Laws or by the people. Again, it is clear that Plato wants to argue that he is being wronged by the people. Now if the people are wronging Socrates unjustly, that means that they are wronging him in a way that is not in accordance with the Laws. Thus, Socrates should not be breaking the Laws in trying to break free from prison.

The only possible answer is a rather tyrannical one, that the Laws are good and are created for good purposes, but must be obeyed no matter what, and it is up to the people to carry that out. The laws against corrupting the young and preaching false deities are just, and if one is found guilty, one ought to be punished. The problem is that the people have not carried out the application of these laws in a just manner by condemning Socrates. Nonetheless, trial by jury is a part of the Laws; the Laws are inflexible, and if Socrates is found guilty by jury then he is guilty according to the Laws. This picture of the Laws, however, does not seem as just or as reasonable as one might like.

Plato - The Crito - Part 3 - 43a - 44b

Note: There are no breaks in the Crito as Plato wrote it. These notes on the text were made later, sections beginning or breaking off where a new theme or topic is introduced or dropped. Sections in this guide are demarcated according to the Stephanus numbers (the page numbers from the 1578 complete works edited by Henri Estienne ("Stephanus" in Latin)). For Plato, the Stephanus numbers are the standard page references, and most editions of Plato's work contain the Stephanus numbers along the margins.

Summary

The dialogue opens just before dawn as Socrates awakes in his prison cell to find his old friend Crito watching over him. Crito explains that he has been watching over Socrates for quite some time, but dared not wake him. Worried about his friend's impending death, Crito was unable to sleep and decided to visit. He expresses admiration at Socrates' composure and calm sleep under such adverse conditions. Socrates replies that it would be odd to fear death at his old age.

Crito explains that he has come at this early hour because he fears Socrates' execution is near at hand. The annual sea-mission to Delos, during which time no prisoner can be executed, has arrived at Sunium on the Attic mainland, and should be returning to Athens soon. The sea-mission is in celebration of Theseus' victory over the Minotaur and the Minoan civilization that once dominated the Mediterranean world from its homeland in Crete. The boat left the day before Socrates' trial, and so Socrates has spent a good deal of time in prison already. Crito predicts that the boat will arrive in Athens this very day--meaning that Socrates would be executed tomorrow. He notes that this news will probably not concern Socrates greatly, but that he, Crito, and Socrates' other friends are taking the news very hard.

Socrates replies that he doubts that the expedition will arrive today. Last night while he slept, he dreamt he saw a beautiful woman in white robes who, quoting the Iliad, said "To the pleasant land of Phthia on the third day thou shalt come" (44b). While Crito expresses puzzlement at this dream, the meaning, to Socrates, is quite clear: he will not die for another three days. Because he is to be executed the day after the expedition returns, the boat cannot possibly return until at least tomorrow.

Commentary

Unlike many of Plato's dialogues, there is no framing device in the Crito: we are launched immediately into the dialogue, with Socrates' first words upon waking. This strategy is more characteristic of Plato's earlier dialogues, where a more historical representation of Socrates is given. In the middle and later dialogues, in which the character of Socrates becomes increasingly a mouthpiece for Plato's own views, elaborate framing devices are set up so that Socrates' own words are recounted by a friend of a friend who heard about it from another friend--or some such thing. Here, we get Socrates' own words more directly, though we should note that Plato himself is nowhere present; the account is at best second-hand.

In spite of this formal hint that the Crito is an earlier dialogue, there is a great deal of debate regarding its date of composition. Stylistically, it varies quite a bit, and many of the characteristic elements of an early dialogue are missing. There is no claim on Crito's part to be an expert in any field, nor does Socrates show Crito to be ignorant. Not only does the dialogue lack the cross-examination and irony of a typical early Socratic dialogue but, as we shall see, it contains positive doctrines more characteristic of Plato's more mature works.

Phthia was the Homeric hero Achilles' homeland, and the quotation from ##The Iliad## relates to Achilles' return home. The suggestion, then, is that Socrates will soon be returning to his real home, just like a hero of Greek legend. The immortality of the soul is a theme that runs throughout Plato's work (and is made most explicit in the ##Phaedo##). Socrates believes his soul is immortal and that, by freeing it of his body, he will allow it return to its proper place. This view differs interestingly from ##The Apology##, in which Socrates claims to have no knowledge of what happens after death, and also from the Phaedo, in which Socrates expresses with much greater certainty his knowledge of the afterlife and the fate of the soul.

Rather than accuse Socrates or Plato of inconsistency, we can understand this increased certainty in an afterlife as a result of Socrates' increasing visionary powers. In The Apology, Socrates refers to a divine voice that speaks to him on occasion, warning him not to do certain things, and he also claims close kinship with Apollo, the god of prophecy, whose oracle at Delphi proclaimed that Socrates is the wisest of all men. As Socrates' death approaches, his powers of prophecy are on the increase. Here, he recounts a vision that foretells his day of death. Also significant is that this vision comes to him in a dream. Death, Socrates recounts in The Apology, is like drifting off into a deep sleep and not reawakening, so it should not surprise us that he should foresee his death while sleeping. His closeness to and his acceptance of death should also explain why he is capable of such calm and deep sleep. In the Phaedo, which tells of Socrates' actual death, he is portrayed as slipping into a slumber: there is nothing violent or unpleasant about Socrates' final end.

Plato - The Crito - Part 2 - Assessment

Though brief, the Crito is a confusing and somewhat muddled dialogue. The difficulty Plato faced in composing the dialogue was to somehow justify Socrates' decision to stay in prison rather than try to escape after his wrongful condemnation. To do this, Plato had to draw out a distinction between the just Laws, which Socrates must obey by staying in prison, and the unjust behavior of Socrates' accusers, who sentenced him to death.

The problem, of course, is that Socrates' accusers have unjustly sentenced him by using the Laws. By giving the Laws their own voice, Plato hopes to distinguish them as a separate entity, making them something human toward which Socrates might be able to act unjustly. However, it is highly debatable how far one can truly separate the laws of a state from the people who apply them. In this instance, we have the people of the state condemning Socrates and the Laws of the state following suit and persuading Socrates that he must face death in order to avoid breaking them. But if both the people and the Laws have ruled that Socrates must be executed, either the people are siding with the Laws or the Laws are siding with the people. And regardless of which of these is the case, it seems odd to assert that the Laws are just and must be respected and that the people are unjust and should not be respected.

It seems Crito, who is trying to persuade Socrates to escape, and Socrates are in a sense talking past one another. One of Crito's strongest arguments in favor of escape comes at 45c, where Crito suggests that Socrates would be abetting the wrong-doing of his enemies in following through with their wishes. Socrates' reply to this argument is that he would in fact be harming the Laws, which are just. If the Laws are just and the people are unjust, but both are willing the same thing, then it seems Socrates is in a quandary. If Socrates stays in prison, he will be siding with his unjust accusers, and if he escapes he will be acting against the just Laws. Ultimately, it seems that it is better to accord oneself with the Laws than to side against the people.

The Crito's distinguished reputation rests largely on the idea of the social contract that Socrates introduces. It is the first suggestion in Western civilization that a legal system exists as a result of a kind of contract between the individual and the state, and this idea has had a tremendous impact on the modern world. Also, the very confusion a reader finds in wading through these arguments is a great motivation to sort through issues of justice and law oneself. After all, Plato's goal is not ultimately to present the final word on any particular issue. He chooses the dialogue form precisely because he wants to encourage us to think for ourselves.

Plato - The Crito - Part 1 - Summary

The dialogue takes place in Socrates' prison cell, where he awaits execution. He is visited before dawn by his old friend Crito, who has made arrangements to smuggle Socrates out of prison to the safety of exile. Socrates seems quite willing to await his imminent execution, and so Crito presents as many arguments as he can to persuade Socrates to escape. On a practical level, Socrates' death will reflect badly on his friends--people will think they did nothing to try to save him. Also, Socrates should not worry about the risk or the financial cost to his friends; these they are willing to pay, and they have also arranged to find Socrates a pleasant life in exile. On a more ethical level, Crito presents two more pressing arguments: first, if he stayed, he would be aiding his enemies in wronging him unjustly, and would thus be acting unjustly himself; and second, that he would be abandoning his sons and leaving them without a father.

Socrates answers first that one should not worry about public opinion, but only listen to wise and expert advice. Crito should not worry about how his, Socrates', or others' reputations may fare in the general esteem: they should only concern themselves with behaving well. The only question at hand is whether or not it would be just for Socrates to attempt an escape. If it is just, he will go with Crito, if it is unjust, he must remain in prison and face death.

At this point, Socrates introduces the voice of the Laws of Athens, which speaks to him and explain why it would be unjust for him to leave his cell. Since the Laws exist as one entity, to break one would be to break them all, and in doing so, Socrates would cause them great harm. The citizen is bound to the Laws like a child is bound to a parent, and so to go against the Laws would be like striking a parent. Rather than simply break the Laws and escape, Socrates should try to persuade the Laws to let him go. These Laws present the citizen's duty to them in the form of a kind of social contract. By choosing to live in Athens, a citizen is implicitly endorsing the Laws, and is willing to abide by them. Socrates, more than most, should be in accord with this contract, as he has lived a happy seventy years fully content with the Athenian way of life.

If Socrates were to break from prison now, having so consistently validated the social contract, he would be making himself an outlaw who would not be welcome in any other civilized state for the rest of his life. And when he dies, he will be harshly judged in the underworld for behaving unjustly toward his city's laws. Thus, Socrates convinces Crito that it would be better not to attempt an escape.

Plato Part 58 - The Republic: Book X, "The Recompense of Life"

The final book of The Republic begins with Socrates return to an earlier theme, that of imitative poetry. He reiterates that while he is still content with having banished poetry from their State, he wishes to explain his reasons more thoroughly. Taking a bed as his example, Socrates relates how in the world there are three levels at which phenomena occur. First and original is the level of God, who creates the bed as an idea; second is the carpenter who imitates God's idea in making a particular bed; and last is the poet or painter, whose bed imitates the imitator's.

Homer is offered as an unfortunate case. The great poet, Socrates laments, would have helped his country more truly had he taken a political role. An artist imitates that which he does not understand; the poet sings of the cobbler, but does he know the trade? Not at all. Imitation, says Socrates, is a game or sport; it is play.

Socrates warms his auditors of the common imbalance of the soul toward the affective, "the rebellious principle," ­toward grief and lamentation‹of which opportunistic poetry takes advantage. Thus it uselessly commemorates human irrationality and cowardice, and worse, for the sake of a popular audience. The audience is seduced, as it were, into feeling undesirable emotions.

The only poetry that Socrates will allow in the State is "hymns to the gods and praises to famous men." Poetry, and especially musical verse, on the other hand, is pleasurable and serves neither truth nor the State‹in fact, just the opposite. And so, after admitting his own love for poetry and Homer in particular, Socrates must leave it out.

But Socrates lifts his spirits and the spirits of his auditors by illustrating the rewards of the virtuous man. He begins, to Glaucon's incredulity, to state that the human soul is immortal. Like the healthy body, the human soul, fortified by the good, lives on eternally. The soul, Socrates continues, cannot be purely known otherwise than through the faculty of reason. And its final and greatest recompense is attained in the afterlife, when the gods‹having observed the good soul's pursuit of god-like virtues‹honor it accordingly. Whereas the unjust man suffers in life, more often in the long run than the short, and is viciously scorned by the gods thereafter.

The book closes with Socrates' long narration of the tale of Er, an ancient hero who, after being slain in battle, entered the afterlife only to return again. The tale defies facile summary except to say that every man and woman arriving in the afterlife is held accountable and judged for his or her actions. A tyrant is condemned to hell for a thousand years. The primarily righteous, however, ascend to heaven where they are made to choose their next mode of life. Some elect to return as animals, others as a famous athlete or ruler; Odysseus, for example, chooses the life of a humble man. But the choice is their own: based on the wisdom they carry with them. Finally the souls drink from the river of Forgetfulness, become oblivious, and return to earth in their new forms. Throughout the story Socrates is careful to warn Glaucon of all the pitfalls and mistakes and, most importantly, of how the account recapitulates everything they have heretofore determined in their dialogue.

Analysis: Book X

The argument presented against poetic imitation is, however arduously maintained, not entirely convincing. Plato believes poetic knowledge to be of appearances only because, were it otherwise, the poet would dedicate himself to "realities" not "imitations," or images. The poet knows no trade and produce nothing of real, that is, necessary value. In fact, Plato's portrait of the artist makes him seem superfluous.

Plato's second objection is that the artist knowingly manipulates the passions of his audience. In a purely rational State, there is no room for the stirring up of "evil constitutions," nor the retelling of misfortunes or misadventures in the past. What lies behind Plato's dislike of maudlin dramas or even great tragedy is his conviction that the audience will identify with and in turn imitate whatever it sees.

The immortality of the soul, for Plato, does not depend on the justice and cannot be destroyed even as the body is destroyed. Its fate, on the other hand, is contingent upon its relationship with the good; it feeds and nourishes itself on the wisdom. The souls of the wicked are a more complicated issue, for, insofar as they are immortal, evil cannot destroy them. However, Plato warns, there are various manifest parts to the soul, and evil-doing damages these. And unjust men also injure their own bodies and the bodies of others. In any case the afterlife is what is most important; there the good soul enjoys the benefits it may or may not have experienced in life.

The moral of the tale of Er, if we may drain it of its color, is that of the eternal return, or recurrence. After death the soul is ultimately judged. This judgment determines the owner of the soul's order of choice in lots for the next life. Then, whatever wisdom he has accumulated previously helps him make his choice when his lot comes up. Both moments are essential because they represent choices between good and evil. One is an ongoing choice, alive in mortal life, and the other is the ultimate choice‹the sum of what the soul has learned in life. Man is responsible for his own behavior, says Plato. And the final twist is that, it seems, the wise man does not really forget, since if he is truly wise he will choose yet another wise existence.

Plato Part 57 - The Republic: Book IX, "On Wrong Or Right Government, and the Pleasure of Each"

In this book, Socrates begins by sharpening his view of the tyrant as an individual and not merely as a part of the tyrannical State (see Book VIII). The tyrant is the son of the democrat except worse. He loses all reason, is overwhelmed by his appetites, and succumbs to a kind of madness.

After exhausting his own funds and entering heavy debt, the tyrant plunders his parents' assets; and, when his mother and father have nothing left, he moves on to rob the homeless, others' homes, and finally temples. If he is a true tyrant and not merely a petty criminal, and he has access to power and arms, he will eventually enslave his fatherland as he enslaved his father. But for all his power, as Socrates has his auditors note, he is also the most miserable of the individual types.

The next part of the dialogue expands to address the happiness or misery of the tyrannical State. Socrates, to illustrate the life of public tyrant or tyrannical ruler, offers the example of a prodigious slave owner who, along with his family, is suddenly alone with his slaves, outside the protection of any State or law, and at the same time surrounded by neighbors that reject slavery and would kill the slave owner if only they could catch him in action.

Socrates then suggests they turn to the question of which of who, among the lovers of knowledge, honor, and gain, enjoys the most pleasure. His conclusion is that the lover of knowledge, the philosopher, has access to both the pleasures of his counterparts and a pleasure to which they do not: wisdom. And he possesses a tool, reason, that other do not.

To examine whether, besides the differences in quantity of pleasures, there is a difference in the quality or nature of pleasures, Socrates pursues a new avenue. His presumption is that the philosopher's pleasure is true, while the others' partake of apparent pleasures. Socrates supports himself by demonstrating that the pleasures enjoyed by the passionate man and the acquisitive man are by necessity bound to pain‹they are impermanent. Whereas the philosopher's pleasure, knowledge, aspires for the immutable and is beyond pleasure and pain both. Almost comically then, through a series of questionable calculations, Socrates deduces that the philosopher lives a life 729 times more pleasurable than the tyrant.

The final contention in the book, whether the unjust man who is perceived in public as just enjoys more pleasure than the just man perceived as unjust, demands a figure for the ideal soul. It is composed of three unequal parts, the largest of which is the Chimera (or of dual nature), then lion, and finally the man, joined together in one beast that on the outside, Socrates says, resembles a normal man. He who allows the beast to rule is the unjust man; and he how gives the man sovereignty, just. Now Socrates injects these men into a community. What we are given to see is that the man ruled by the beast, although he may enjoy a good reputation for some time, inexorably degenerates and makes a serious error, betraying the beast behind the man. On the other hand the just man looks to the city within and of which he is ruler and comport himself accordingly, regardless of whether his city matches the State in which he lives.

Analysis: Book IX

The tyrant is the injustice incarnate. Although the tyrant appears to have unlimited freedom, ultimately, he is ruled by his appetites and is a slave to them. He is the "beast" of human nature, as Plato terms it, and the very worst kind of man. Further he is miserable, because he will never have peace; he must live in constant fear. The morals he puts into practice in order to gain power will inevitably be used to depose him. He must be overthrown by his subjects or his offspring (if he does not destroy them first) just as he overthrew his own father.

Because of his insatiable lusting, the tyrant is condemned to the public life that in turn makes a slave of him. He needs money and resources far beyond his own means to indulge his appetites; thus he enters public life. But his subjects understandably come to hate him, and the tyrant must constantly exploit without letting on that he is exploiting, or kill.

A judgment as to the nature of the pleasures each type of man, born of the three components of the soul: reason, affect, appetite, is the logical next step in the philosopher's overarching argument. We remember that he has been after proof of the superiority of justice to injustice from the beginning. Adjudicating on the premise that depth and breadth of experience is pleasure, the philosopher is declared victor‹he has what the others have and more.

Plato argues that pleasure and pain, since they are correlative and disunified, are only the manifestations of an alternative, transcendent state, which he dubs rest. Although there are pleasures that are good in themselves, smell is Plato's example, most pleasure, especially violent ones, cause or escape from pain. Likewise many pains can be considered as the absence of pleasure, e.g. desire. The rest state, however, is immutable, the eternal present, and is achieved through the acquisition of wisdom only, not honor or wealth as per the others. Rest is similar to the Buddhist doctrine of not-desiring; when one desires nothing, there is no pain.

The figure of the ideal soul is simply another form of illustration employed by Plato, in the same vein as a parable. The unjust man, who indulges his beastly inner nature, cannot keep up appearances forever: his peers must eventually know his faults and condemn him. The man guided by wisdom lives pleasantly in a State of the mind‹in fact, a divine State, in harmony with the Ideal, and irrespective of any State found on earth. He enjoys an inner peace unattainable by another path.