The proposal and the arguments of Kriton
Kriton has gone to the prison very early, long before daybreak and before the beginning of the regular visiting hours. With special permission of the jailer he has entered; silently he has seated himself beside the sleeping philosopher. Meanwhile dawn has broken, Socrates has awakened, and expresses surprise at seeing his friend so early. Kriton explains that he did not want to wake him prematurely. He expresses his amazement at the ease with which Socrates takes his fate upon himself. The latter points out that at his age - he is seventy - it would be inappropriate to be unwilling about death, which is approaching anyway.
The reason for the early coming of the visitor is the imminent execution of the prisoner. Kriton expects it for the following day, Socrates for the day after next. For Kriton, who wants to persuade his friend to escape the next night, time is therefore pressing. He has already devised a plan of escape and intends to accomplish it by bribing the prison guards. In doing so, he assumes that his fortune will be sufficient; however, should this not be the case, many other friends are willing to provide the required sum. Thanks to this broad willingness to help, Kriton assures us, it is not necessary for any individual to ruin himself financially. In Thessaly, Kriton has friends who hold Socrates in high esteem and who gladly take him in and ensure his safety.
Kriton fears to lose a friend as he will never find one again. With several arguments he tries to convince Socrates. He thinks it is the duty of friends to sacrifice their property in such a situation; therefore Socrates can accept the offer without hesitation. In the event of execution, Kriton fears ill-repute; he thinks that the philosopher's friends will then be accused of having failed to save him out of stinginess and cowardice. Criton does not wish to expose himself to such reproaches. Moreover, he finds it unjust that Socrates, in going to his death, fulfills the will of his enemies. Furthermore, Kriton argues that a father bears responsibility for his still young children. He who has fathered children like Socrates must take care of their upbringing and not abandon them and leave them to the fate of orphans.
The theoretical premises of Socrates' argumentation
After Kriton has presented, explained and justified his proposal, Socrates goes into it in detail. He wants to have an open discussion and asks Kriton to express objections if necessary. Kriton, however, does not raise any objections to the following remarks, for his friend's argumentation seems conclusive to him. He only listens and expresses his agreement with the individual lines of thought or says that he has not understood something.
First, Socrates reminds us of the principle that only objective, rational consideration may determine a decision. If subjective fears or needs oppose what is found to be right, they must not be allowed any influence, otherwise one is not in accord with one's principles. Also irrelevant is the fact that some opinions are widely held, for what is important is not the number but only the competence of the representatives of a view. Just as an athlete follows only the advice of physical education instructors and doctors and not that of a crowd of ignorant people, because otherwise he would damage his body, so too in matters of right and wrong, good and bad action, only informed judgment is relevant. The opinions of the ignorant crowd do not count.
For those who have treated their bodies wrongly out of incompetence and have thus broken down their health, continuing to live no longer seems worthwhile. But there is also another kind of disruption. It concerns that in man - "whatever it may be" - to which justice and injustice refer. By this paraphrase Socrates means the immortal soul. It is, according to his conviction, damaged by unjust action. After such disruption, life is no longer worth living for the philosopher. Since the soul is far nobler and more important than the body, its damage is far worse than physical impairment and also worse than death. It is not life itself that is worth striving for, but only a good life. To live well is to live virtuously, that is, to be always just. Criton agrees with this. Thus, the question of whether escape from prison is appropriate for a wrongfully convicted person can only be examined and resolved from the perspective of justice.
Criton's considerations about the financial aspect, about a possible damage of reputation and about the education of the children are not taken seriously by Socrates. Such considerations are inconsequential to him. He compares such motives to the impulses of irrational people who carelessly condemn someone to death and would later gladly undo their deed, if that were possible.
Socrates reminds his friend of their common convictions, which they agreed upon long ago and to which they have always adhered ever since. It would be absurd to simply drop these well thought-out principles now at an advanced age, as if they had been mere childish ideas. The starting point is the conviction that, under all circumstances without exception, it is wrong in principle to do something wrong. By wrong Socrates understands everything that harms someone. He considers harming to be absolutely wrong even if it is in retaliation for a wrong one has suffered oneself, such as insulting an insulter. Another principle is that a commitment to something just that one has made must be kept at all costs. Kriton reaffirms his earlier commitment to these principles.
The application of the theory to the current case
As Socrates subsequently sets out, the question now to be examined is whether by fleeing he would harm someone or disregard a just obligation. To this end, he recites what he believes the laws would say if they could speak and justify their claim to validity. He lets the personified laws take the floor and represent the position of the state, as would a speaker who had to defend legality.
The laws would assert that without respect for their rules the state community could not exist. They would ask a Socrates acting in Kriton's sense whether he wanted to ruin the state by granting himself, and thus every citizen, the right to disregard legally binding court decisions according to his personal discretion.
To this Kriton - or Socrates, if he agreed with Kriton - could reply that he does not oppose the entire legal system, but only a judgment of injustice. But then the question would have to be addressed to him, what he had to reproach his hometown, whose legal system he undermined with his behavior. Socrates, if he behaved in this way, would have to be reminded of the basis of his existence: It would then have to be held against him that the existence of the state order had been the precondition for his father being able to marry his mother. Thanks to this order he had been born, within its framework he had been well brought up. He owed to the laws, like every Athenian, everything good that a legal order could provide for citizens. Therefore, the fatherland with its laws was, as it were, a father to him and, even more than a father, was entitled to his reverence and loyalty. He who disapproved of the conditions and laws in Athens could emigrate with all his possessions. But he who remained implicitly entered into an agreement with the state by which he pledged himself to law-abidingness. If he considers something in the judicial system to be wrong, it is up to him to point out the injustice by argument; if he is not in a position to do so, he has to respect the applicable law. This was especially true of Socrates, he argued, because he had spent his entire life in Athens, preferring that place to any other, even to the states he was wont to praise. He had also demonstrated his acquiescence to Athenian living conditions by founding his family in his hometown. Moreover, in his trial he had rejected banishment as a possible alternative to execution, explicitly preferring death to it. If he had wanted to, he could have chosen exile during the trial and then left Athens legally. A retrospective attempt to unilaterally reverse a free and binding decision was disgraceful.
Furthermore, the laws argue against Criton's opinion that Socrates, if he accepted the offer, would expose his helpers to the danger of also having to flee or forfeiting their fortune. In addition, as a fugitive lawbreaker in a well-established state, he would be suspect to the well-meaning, for he would be suspected of disobeying the laws there as well. So he would have to make do with a place like Thessaly, where disorder and licentiousness reigned. There he might excite mirth with the story of his miserable escape. But as a philosopher unfaithful to his principles, he would be so discredited that he would have to give up his previous purpose in life, philosophical dialogue. Then his meaning in life would consist only in eating. His children, if he did not want to abandon them, he would have to take with him to Thessaly, where they would be homeless. If, on the other hand, he left them in Athens, their good education by his friends would be guaranteed, but his survival would be of no use to them.
In conclusion, the laws recite an urgent admonition: If Socrates now dies, he departs from life as one who has been wronged by men-not by the laws. But if he flees, he in turn becomes a wrong-doer against himself, against his friends, his fatherland, and the laws. Then, as a wrongdoer, bad things await him in Hades, the realm of the dead.
After Socrates has finished the imaginary plea of the laws, he confesses to be as moved by it himself as a cult dancer intoxicated by the sound of flute music, a corybant. Nevertheless, he invites Kriton to express any counter-arguments. Kriton, however, knows nothing to object to, and Socrates ends the conversation by referring to the divine guidance in which he wants to entrust himself.
