Arguments in the Crito

I. The Main Argument Against Escape:

A1. One should never do anything that is wrong (bad, disgraceful).

A2. For Socrates to attempt to escape and evade his death penalty would be wrong.

--------------

A3. (Therefore,) Socrates should not attempt to escape and evade his death penalty.

II. Arguments in Support of A2:

B. Argument from Consequences

B1. It is wrong knowingly to bring significant harm to the laws and state, even for self-preservation.

B2. In attempting to escape and evade a penalty imposed by the state, Socrates would be knowingly bringing significant harm to the laws and state.

---------------

B3. (Therefore,) it would be wrong for Socrates to attempt to escape.

Note: There are also negative arguments aimed at undermining Crito's arguments appealing to the good consequences of escaping: that is, even the consequences for Socrates and his friends would actually be bad, thus undermining Crito's positive argument from consequences in favor of escape.

C. General Authoritarian Arguments:

Note that here there is no appeal to consequences. The wrongness of escape is defended on independent grounds.

• Argument from Parent/State Analogy

• Argument from Agreement

C1. The act of voluntarily remaining in the state as an adult constitutes an implicit legitimate and serious agreement to obey the laws of the state.

C2. It is always wrong to break legitimate and serious agreements.

------------------

C3. (Therefore,) it would always be wrong for any long-time citizen to fail to obey the laws of the state.

C4. Socrates is a long-time citizen of Athens, and his attempting to escape would violate its laws.

------------------

C5. (Therefore, as an instance,) it would be wrong for Socrates to attempt to escape.

Objection: Are C1 and C3 consistent with the fundamental principle in A1?

D. Potential Revision of Argument from Agreement

D1. The act of voluntarily remaining in the state as an adult constitutes an implicit and legitimate agreement to obey just laws, which includes accepting the outcome of fair and legal judicial procedures (i.e. legal in relation to just laws) and submitting to any prescribed punishment (even if the verdict is mistaken).

D2. It is always wrong to break legitimate and serious agreements.

------------------

D3. (Therefore,) it would always be wrong for any long-time citizen to fail to obey just laws or to fail to accept the outcome of fair and legal judicial procedures (under just laws).

D4. Socrates is a long-time citizen of Athens, and his trial was conducted fairly, according to just laws, which he would be violating by attempting to escape.

-------------------

D5. (Therefore,) it would be wrong for Socrates to attempt to escape.

This avoids the obvious objections to the argument in C1-C5. But is it still too strong? I will explain in lecture why I think it is.