Erroneus Assumptions in The Trial and Death of Socrates Essay -- Philo

Erroneus Assumptions in The Trial and Death of Socrates In Plato's Crito, Socrates explains to his old friend Crito his reasons for refusing an offer to help him escape execution. One of the tools Socrates uses to convince Crito of the righteousness of his decision is a hypothetical argument concerning the state and laws of Athens. Central to this argument is the congeniality that Socrates had always found in Athens, reflected by the fact that Socrates chose to remain in Athens for most of his life. Such a choice, the laws insist, implies a tacit agreement between Socrates and the state of Athens, stipulating that Socrates either obey the laws or, when he deems the laws unjust, persuade the city to act in a more suitable fashion. It is this "just agreement" that prohibits Socrates from fleeing Athens to avoid execution. Socrates proves to Crito's satisfaction that to break this agreement would be to do wrong to the city of Athens, and as such it cannot be seriously considered. As he discusses his situation with Crito, Socrates refutes some of Crito's basic assumptions. Curiously, however, Socrates does not examine his own assumptions; he never once asks if his agreement with Athens is "just." He correctly assumes that Athens' congeniality to him obligates him to follow the tenets of the agreement, but he does not ask if Athens feels similarly obligated. This question is central, for if Athens fails to uphold its part of the agreement the agreement cannot be just and Socrates is freed from any duty to it. I will argue that Socrates' own reasoning, particularly that used in Crito and Euthyphro, will prove that it is not only not wrong to break the agreement, but also that it is wrong to abide by an unjust agreement, such as... ...nywhere in the text of the Crito or the Euthyphro, unlike most of the other claims, which were derived from actual arguments in one of these Socratic dialogues. Whether or not the agreement is rendered unjust by Athens actions is clearly a debatable point, which affects the rest of the argument. There does not seem to be a way to prove undoubtedly that the agreement itself is made unjust if one of the parties unjustly refuses to acknowledge its obligations. Theoretically, the agreement is still sound, but this argument rests on the idea that, in practice, the agreement can never be more than what the parties make it. Although far from incontrovertible, the claim that the agreement is unjust can at least be reasonably defended against criticism. And if the above argument is correct, Socrates died for the sake of the unjust action of adhering to an impious agreement.