Socrates’ wealthy friend Crito came to visit him in prison and offered to help pay for Socrates’ escape. Socrates explains why he can’t accept the offer. This dialogue is a bit weird because one of the characters is ‘the law’.
(NB: I have taken huge liberties with the text in these dialogues. They are very different from the actual texts themselves, but I have tried to outline some of the key arguments in the order in which they appear in the text and to maintain the sense of dialogue. My aim was to give you an introduction to the ideas discussed and to use those ideas as a catalyst for your own thoughts.)
Crito: Socrates, I and your friends can bribe the guards and help you to escape. Please come with us. You can stay with my friends in Thessaly. If you stay here, you will be executed tomorrow, and if you are executed tomorrow, then your sons will not receive the education and support that they should. Also, people will wonder why we, your friends, did not step in to help you!
Socrates: Crito, let me ask you something. If a sportsperson was injured, who should make the decision about whether they play in the next game or not: the sportsperson’s fans or the sportsperson’s doctor?
Crito: The doctor of course.
Socrates: So, with all respect, it would be unwise of me to listen to your advice on this matter. This decision requires some expertise, but instead of being a decision about what is healthy, it is a decision about what is just. Let’s imagine who an expert in the matter of justice might be – I know, the law itself! Now what would the law say to us?
The Law: Socrates, the city of Athens would not exist without the laws. A city is a group of people bound together by their agreement to follow the same laws. A game without rules is not a game – a city without its laws is not a city. If a player decides to ignore the rules of a game, then they are no longer playing that game. Therefore, players cannot just pick and choose which rules they follow. Equally, a citizen cannot just pick and choose which laws they follow. A player is who they are because of the game – without the game they are not a player! And therefore, the players owe it to the game to follow the rules. Equally Socrates, you are who you are because of Athens; you are a philosopher because of Athens. If you wish to continue being who you are, then you must continue to play the game – even if that means dying. To be just, you must fulfil your obligations, and you have an obligation to respect and follow the laws of Athens.
Socrates: You see, Crito? If I were to escape, I could not call myself a philosopher; I would have to become someone else. What kind of philosopher does not stay true to their principles? I have no choice, Crito. I am chained to the laws as a dancer is chained to music. I know that if I die, my friends will ensure that my sons are educated and taken care of. If you help me to escape, you will all be in danger too and thus unable to help my sons. Do you have any objections to these arguments?
Crito: I have none, Socrates.
The definition of justice here seems to be something like, 'following the rules of the game you are playing'.
Is that a good definition? Should we agree with every rule of in a game? Isn't it possible to improve on the rules of the game, or just to change one rule and still play that game? (Think of how they added VAR to football.)
What is the definition of justice according to 'The laws' and 'Socrates'?
Can you think of an objection to this definition?
Do you find Socrates’ answer convincing?