Alright guys, hello and welcome back to the second day of Introduction to Ethics. So today we're going to be looking at Crito. And there's, I can't remember if I talked about this yesterday, which is probably a bad sign, or if I talked about it in my Introduction to Philosophy course, but Plato's dialogues are broken up into three periods. The early period, the middle period, and the late period.
And what's interesting and important to note is the early period is when Plato is writing basically just Socrates' point of view. He's basically just transcribing what his mentor is teaching him. And then when you get into the later period or the middle period is when Plato starts to write, still using Socrates as his main character, but he starts to give his own point of view.
And then the later period is the same way, but his views start to develop and grow from his middle work. And so most scholars would believe that Plato's early work is really just actually what Socrates himself believed and isn't any of Plato's original ideas, really. And so that's important to understand here because we're reading the Crito by Plato, but this is an early work.
And so this seems to be what Socrates actually believed. Now, a little bit of important context before we start to get in here. Socrates was just put on trial for the accusation of both impiety and for corrupting the youth with his philosophy, essentially.
And so he was put to trial, and then he was convicted. And this takes place right before he is sentenced. So he's already been sentenced to death, but right before he actually dies.
And so basically this is the last possible attempt for his friends to try to get him out of prison. And Crito is one of Socrates' dear friends who is trying to convince him to escape prison, but Socrates is just not having any of it. So that's where the play begins.
CR obviously is going to be Crito, SO is going to be Socrates, and those are the only two characters that we have in this dialogue. but Crito, I really want to point out here, begins by saying, By Zeus, no, Socrates, I wish I myself were not so sleepless and sorrowful, and so I have been marveling at you when I see how peacefully you have been sleeping. I deliberately didn't wake you so that you would pass the time as peacefully as possible.
Even before now, I have often thought you fortunate on account of your demeanor towards your entire life, and even more so in your present misfortune, how easily and calmly you bear it. Then Socrates says it's because it would be out of tune, Crito, to be angry at my age if I must finally die. And so, Crito comes into Socrates' cell, but Socrates is fast asleep.
And so, when Socrates wakes up, he sees Crito there. He's like, well, why didn't you wake me? And essentially, what Crito's saying here is like, look, you're in such a bad place right now. And you must be agonizing over the fact that you're about to die. Like, I didn't want to wake you up just to bring you back into this wretched misery, you know, that you're facing in life.
And Socrates is like, look, I'm good. Like, I'm going to die. uh he was fairly old too um so he was like i can't be upset with the life that i've lived and he said what is it has the ship derived from delos upon which arrival i must die and so basically uh there was a bunch of people out um on an expedition or something i believe um and they're in delos and whenever the ship was to return the day after that is when they were going to execute uh socrates and so he And Krydo says that he comes bearing a word, and so that's what he was assuming he was talking about, and he's like, no, but, like, it's supposed to come by the end of today.
And so then moving forward, let's go to page two. Krydo then says, but my supernatural Socrates, even now, listen to me and be saved. I think that if you were to die, it won't just be one misfortune. Apart from being separated from the kind of friend the like of which I'll never find again, many people, moreover, who did not know me and you well will think that I could have saved you if I were willing to spend the money, but that I didn't care to. And wouldn't this indeed be the most shameful reputation, that I would seem to value money above friends?
For the many will not believe that it was you yourself who refused to leave here, even though we were urging you to. So it seemed like a lot of people. especially the guards and such, actually liked Socrates quite a bit.
And so it seems pretty obvious, at least from this reading, that... very easily, some of Socrates' rich friends, like Crito, for example, could have paid, you know, a small amount of money to bribe the guards to allow Socrates to escape and exile to some other land or some other city and be free. And so Crito's saying, look, like, yeah, it's going to be terrible that you die, but also, like, what are people going to think? that I didn't want to help my friend. You know, it's part of like him trying to save his own face here.
And it could also be like maybe he's being self-centered here, or maybe it's the fact that like maybe he thinks, well, Socrates, you don't care about yourself. Maybe you would care about me. And so you'll escape on my account, right? Socrates says, but why should we, blessed Crito, care so much about the opinion of the many? The best people who are more deserving of our attention will believe that the matter was handled in just the way that it was.
And then Kratos says, but surely you see, Socrates, that we must pay attention to the opinion of the many too. The present circumstances make it clear that the many can inflict not just the least of evils, but practically the greatest, when one has been slandered amongst them. He's saying, look, it's the opinion of the many that sent you to, you know, death.
Like, we should care about that. And then skipping down, Kratos says, what's more, Socrates, what you are doing doesn't seem right to me. giving yourself up when you could have been saved. So this is a part of his big spiel, trying to, you know, convince Socrates to escape prison.
He's like, look, like, it doesn't seem right that you are having the ability to save yourself, but you're not going to. In addition, I think you're betraying your sons, whom you could raise and educate by going away and abandoning them. And as far as you are concerned, they can experience whatever happens to come their way.
when it's likely that as orphans will get the usual treatment of orphans. One should either not have children or endure the hardship of raising and educating them. But it looks to me as though you are taking the laziest path, whereas you must choose the path a good and brave man would choose, especially when you keep saying that you care about virtue your whole life. He's saying, look, would a virtuous person abandon his kids to become orphans?
No. And he's saying, essentially, if you're not going to leave on... your own behalf, if you're not going to leave on my behalf, leave on behalf of your kids, right? And then what Socrates replies with is, we must therefore examine whether we should do this or not, because as always, and not just now for the first time, I'm the sort of person who has persuaded my soul by nothing other than the argument which seems best to me upon reflection. At present, I'm not able to abandon the argument I previously made.
Now that this misfortune has befallen me, but they appeared the same to me. And I defer to and honor the ones I did previously. He's saying, look, like I rationed out before what should happen.
And now that I'm about to die, my reasoning shouldn't be any different. And then he says, is it fair enough to say that one should not value every human opinion, but only some and not others? And so that's what he's starting to say.
And so he gives this example, you know, shouldn't we value good opinions and not bad ones? Aren't the good ones the opinions of the wise while the worthless ones come from the ignorant? Should a man in training who takes it seriously pay any heed to the praise and blame of an opinion of everyone or to his doctor or trainer? So he should fear criticism and welcome praise of that one person, the doctor or the trainer, and not the many. He must practice and exercise, eat and drink in the way that seems best to that one person, the trainer and expert more than to all the others.
Well, then if he disobeys this one man and dishonors the opinion and his praises and said honors those of the many who knew nothing about it, won't he suffer some harm? And he's like, well, yeah, of course. And this harm and what does it tend to do and in what part of the disobedient person?
Well, it's clear it's going to harm him in the body since this is what it destroys. And so Socrates is well said. Isn't the same with others?
not go to over not go to over them all, but in particular justice and injustice and shameful and fine things and good and bad, which is our current discussion is about. Whether we must follow the opinion of the many and fear it, or instead the opinion of the one person, if there is someone who has knowledge whom we must defer to and fear more than all the others together. If we do not heed his opinion, we will corrupt and harm that part of us which becomes better with justice and is destroyed by injustice.
Don't you think so? So saying, look, clearly we don't have to value the opinion of the many, but the opinion of the few, you know, the people that are wise. Whether you're training, you know, as an athlete, you should value, you know, your trainer or your doctor. Likewise, as a person, you should value the opinion of the just, right? And the good.
And so then Socrates says, so tell me if we destroy that part of which of us, which is improved by what is wholesome and corrupted by what is sickening, because we do not obey the opinion of the person who knows, is life worth living when that part is ruined? This is the body, I suppose, or not. And then he says, then is life worth living with a wretched and corrupted body? He says, not at all. And is life worth living after part after the part of us which injustice injures?
and justice benefits has been corrupted. And he says, not at all. So he says, look, if we get rid of justice, and if we corrupt that part of us, that part of our nature, whatever it might be, you know, the soul, the mind, what have you, that focuses on justice and goodness and these virtues, if that is corrupt, and we become, you know, this unjust, you know, evil, wretched type of person, is that even a life worth living? And so, thus, amen, we must not pay heed to what the many will say to us, but to what that one person who knows about just and unjust things will say, to that one person to the truth itself. So you're wrong at the beginning to bring this up, that we must heed the opinion of the many concerning just things and noble things and good things and their opposites.
But in spite of that, someone might declare the many can put us to death. But you wonderful fellow, it seems to me that the following statement, too, which we have been over. before still remains the same as it did previously.
So examine whether, examine whether or not it still holds true for you that it's not living that should be our priority, but living well. And that's a big part of Socrates' statement, right? One of his most famous sayings that you might've heard before is the unexamined life is not worth living. And what Socrates is really arguing for is like, you know, it's not that we should value living in and of itself, but living well.
And part of living well means to be just, means to be good, means to be caring, compassionate, et cetera, et cetera. You know, these types of virtues. Therefore, based on what you've agreed, we must examine the following.
Whether it is just or unjust for me to try to leave here when I was not acquitted by Athenians. So you can start to see what his argument is going to be unfolding here, right? It would be unjust for me to break the law and for me to try to escape even though I was sentenced to death.
And so if it's unjust for him to do it, then if he were to do it, he wouldn't be living well. He'd be corrupting himself and turn, you know, from the good, righteous, you know, charitable, honest person that he is to a hypocrite and someone who's willing to give up on his values. And that wouldn't be living well. And so either he could die well or live unjustly and corrupted.
And he's saying it's only living well that matters. So he would rather die well. So that's going to be the formulation of his argument.
What he says down here is if we think that we're acting unjustly by doing these things, I don't think we should take into consideration whether we will die if we hold our ground and keep our peace or anything else we will suffer rather than whether we're acting unjustly. So that's the important part here. And then he says, do we say that we should never willingly act unjustly or that we should in some instances and not in others?
Or is acting unjustly never good or noble, as we often agreed on previous occasions? And so, you know, Crito agrees with him. And then Socrates says, and so on. And so one should not repay an injustice with an injustice, as many think, since one should never act unjustly. And so, you know, yeah, it was unjust for me to be sentenced to death.
but if I were to escape and break the laws, I would be repaying that injustice with an injustice, injustice, and that's never okay. So just because something bad happened to me doesn't mean I can have this eye for an eye mentality and do something bad to another person. Because that would be me acting unjustly and that would be corrupting my life.
And then down here, he also says, when someone has made an agreement with someone else, and it is just must he keep it or betray it? And he says he must keep it. Observe what follows from this. By leaving here without persuading the city, we are doing someone a harm, and those whom we should least of all harm are not. And are we keeping to the just agreements we made or not?
And Cryosides is not able to answer this. He doesn't know. So Socrates says, well, look at it this way. If the laws in the community of the city came to us when we were about to run away from here, or whatever it should be called, and standing over us were to ask, tell me, Socrates, What are you intending to do? By attempting this deed, aren't you planning to do nothing other than destroy us, the laws, and the civic community as much as you can?
Or does it seem impossible or does it seem possible to you that any city where the verdicts reach have no force but are made powerless and corrupted by private citizens could continue to exist and not be in ruins? And so he's saying, like, I am breaking the law here and I've agreed to the law. And what you're going to see later when we start to look at social contract theory is really a lot of this is the basis for the social contract theory.
But we're about to get into that a little bit here. So what Socrates says here is the word of the laws then said, Socrates, did we agree on this? We and you to honor the decisions that the city makes.
And if we were surprised to hear them say this, perhaps we could say, Socrates, don't be surprised at what we're saying, but answer. Since you are used to participating in questioning and answering. Come then, what reason can you give us and the city for trying to destroy us? Did we not to begin with give birth to you? And wasn't it through us that your father married your mother and conceived you?
So show those of us the laws concerning marriages, what fault you find that keeps them from being good. I find no fault with them, I would say. What about the laws concerning the upbringing and education of children, by which you too were raised? Or didn't those of us the laws established on this matter give good instructions when they directed your father to educate you in the arts and gymnastics? They did, I would say.
So he was born in the city, he was raised in it, it always treated him well. You know, that's what it's starting to argue here. And so the laws continue speaking to Socrates here. Consider then, Socrates, the laws I might say, whether we speak the truth about the following, that it is not just for you to try to do to us what you're now attempting. For we gave birth to you, brought you up, educated you, and gave you and all the other citizens everything that's good, we could that's good.
And yet even so, we pronounce that we have given the power to any Athenian who wishes, when he has been admitted as an adult and sees the affair of the city and us the laws, and is not pleased with us, to take his possessions and leave for wherever he wants. And if any among you wants to live in a colony because we in the city do not satisfy him, or if he wants to go somewhere else and live as a foreigner, none of us laws stand in the way or forbids him from taking his possessions with him. and leaving for wherever he wants.
So it's saying, look, like, we raised you, we treated you well, we gave you everything good that we could. And look, even when you grew up, you could have chosen to live elsewhere. But by deciding to live in Athens, you're implicitly making this agreement to live by the laws.
And you know, if you didn't want to live by these laws, you could have lived elsewhere. But because you live here, you must obey the laws. And you have essentially signed a contract. or an agreement to obey the laws.
And, you know, if the city ever then decides that you were acting unjustly, then the city can decide to punish you in that way, even if it means execution. Even if it's an unjust verdict, because you agreed to obey the laws of the land, that means that you would be acting unjustly by breaking your agreement. That's essentially what his argument is here.
But whoever remains with us, having observed how we decided lawsuits and take care of other civic matters, we claim that this man, by his action, has now made an agreement with us to do what we command him to do. So there's the agreement. And this is also the basis, like I said, for the social contract theory.
And we claim that anyone who does not obey is guilty three times over, because he disobeys us who gave birth to him and who raised him, and because despite agreeing to be subject to us, he does not obey us or... or persuade us if we are doing something improper. And although we give him an alternative and don't angrily press him to do what we order, but instead we allow either of two possibilities, either to persuade us or to comply. But he does neither of these.
They might say, Socrates, we have great evidence for this and that we in the city satisfy you. For you would never have lived here more than all of the other Athenians. Unless it seemed particularly good to you, and you never left the city for a festival except once to Isthmus, but never to anywhere else except on military duty. Nor did you ever make another trip like other Athenians, nor did any urge seize you to get to know a different city or other laws. But we and our city were sufficient for you.
So intently did you choose us and agree to be governed by us, in particular, because the city was satisfactory to you. You had children in it. So answer us first on the particular point of whether or not we speak the truth in claiming that you agreed to be governed by us, indeed, and not merely in words. What can we say to this, Credo?
Mustn't we agree? And he says, well, we must, Socrates. Aren't you, they might say, going against your contract and agreement with us ourselves, which you were not forced to agree to, nor deceived about, nor compelled to decide upon in a short time, but over 70 years, in which time you could have gone away if we did not satisfy you, and these agreements did not appear just to you.
So he's saying, look, you had seven decades of life to decide whether or not you wanted to follow these laws. Just think about what good it would do for you and your friends if you break it and do wrong in one of these ways. It's pretty clear that your friends will risk exile along with you and disenfranchisement from the city and confiscation of their property. And if you first go to one of the closest cities, to Thebes or to Megara, since both are well governed, you would be an enemy.
Socrates of those governments and all those who care about their cities will regard you suspiciously, thinking you are a destroyer of the laws. and you will confirm the opinion of the judges in thinking that they judged the case correctly since whoever is the destroyer of the laws would certainly be considered in some way a destroyer of young and foolish men so saying look like we charge you for corrupting the youth and if you go and escape prison just kind of confirms yeah you were the type of person to corrupt the youth will you flee them from the well-governed cities and from the most civilized people is it worth it to you to live like this Will you associate with him, Socrates, and feel no shame when talking with him? What will you say, Socrates, what you said here, that virtue and justice are most valuable for humans and lawfulness in the laws?
And you don't think the conduct of this, Socrates, will appear shameful? One should think so. So he's also saying, look, I'd be a hypocrite if I were to leave now.
It would be me breaking everything I stood for and believed in. But still, will no one say that an old man who probably... only has a short time left in his life, was so greedy in his desire to live that he dared to violate the greatest of laws. So be convinced by we who brought you up, Socrates, and do not put children or life or anything else ahead of justice. So this is his argument for the importance of justice, right?
And this is his argument also saying that he has to comply with the laws because he agreed. to the laws by living there, by accepting the social goods. He could have left at any other time, but he made this contract with the city that he would obey the laws, even if that means that he would be unjustly put to death by the law.
And to repay injustice with injustice is never okay. It would be corrupting ourself, and he never would want to do that. He would rather die living well than to continue living but corrupted.
That, you know, to live corrupted and unvirtuous, you know, full of the vices, this, it would lead to wickedness. No one would trust him. He'd be a hypocrite. And that kind of life is not worth living. So he'd rather die knowing that what he did was just than to ever live unjustly.
So that's why he says that he's convinced to never put anything else, even his own life, ahead of justice. So, yeah, that is the ethics of. Socrates.
And it's also important to note the last thing I'll say about Socrates and his justice, or not his justice, but his ethics, rather, is there's an important distinction to be made between Socrates and Plato, but both of them are written by Plato and both of them have the main character be Socrates, so it's a bit confusing. But what Socrates believed was uh, Goodness was knowledge or a type of knowledge that can be learned. And Plato will later on say that goodness is not something that can be learned.
So we'll get to that, I think, tomorrow. But yeah, that's it for today. Other than that, I will see you all tomorrow and have a great day.