Socrates and Crito

Wanting to talk of Socrates, Crito referred to the wrong verdict, recalled the responsibility to the family and young children remaining in poverty and without support. Escape will also be successful, and Socrates finds refuge with loyal friends in Thessaly.
Creighton and led such an argument. The refuse of Socrates to escape cast a shadow on his friends. Most would say that my friends backed away from Socrates in the hour, money and effort spared to save him. Since the proposal and arguments Crito Socrates did not agree. Escape from the prison for him was totally unacceptable. It would have been, in his opinion, dishonest and criminal act, injustice and evil. Although the majority and able to kill us, said Socrates, however, the question of the virtuous, fair and beautiful, it should be guided not by the majority opinion and the opinion of intelligent people and the truth itself. “…Agree or disagree with the majority, we will suffer from it more or less than now, anyway – thought Socrates – an unjust act is evil and shame commits it, and, moreover, in all cases.” The goal, even the high and fair, does not justify, according to Socrates, the low and criminal means. And he considered intolerable injustice and wrong answer to someone else’s injustice and evil. Socrates repeatedly expressed the idea that someone else is better to suffer injustice than to do it. To return evil for evil – unfairly, thought Socrates, the cost estimate of this crucial ethical point of view of the majority of his contemporaries. Criticism of the motives of his escape from prison, Socrates in the future is the name of law as if it were the last in person in a prison cell to his prestige and personal intervention to prevent the contemplated crime.
The condemnation of Socrates showed that the restored Athenian democracy was unable to restore its former moral level. In fact it was a political process, and then began a series of judicial executions of former political enemies of democracy, executions, confiscation of property, which is often reduced to the note of personal accounts. Socrates’ death sentence meant the conviction of the Athenian democracy, the late fifth and fourth centuries BC.
It is hard not to accept with this idea. Sometimes genius is needed to win by his death and his sacrifice. Several centuries ago, Giordano Bruno, brought himself into the victim. And science has won. The world has entered the scientific era. In the first century, Christ was crucified. And Christianity triumphed. It has become a world religion. The same thing happened to Socrates. Socrates led a sacrifice, he was killed. And his philosophy had won.
So why I am agree with decision not to escape. His philosophy couldn’t win if he escaped. If Socrates escaped, he thus had to abandon the goal of his life – from his philosophical views. I can substantiate my claim three points:
1) According to Socrates, the most beautiful and most important property of both the individual and the state as a whole is a freedom that is achieved by adhering to all citizens reasonable and just laws of the policy. By this he could not escape, because by doing so he would be violating the law.
2) Compliance with laws polis Socrates regards as a basis for the formation unanimity of citizens. In the opinion of Socrates is such a happy state in the world and inviolable in time of war. Therefore, if Socrates would not obey the decision of the citizens, he thus had to renounce his philosophy.
3) Socrates said: “And in war and in court and everywhere must do the things that the state and the fatherland tells.” So why he could not escape from his state and his fatherland.
Works Cited
Plato. “Dialogs”. Library of World Literature (2009).
K. A. Mirumyan – “History of Political Doctrines. Antiquity”. Yerevan (2000).
Colaiaco, James A. “Socrates Against Athens”. New York: Routledge (2001).