Abstract

Human perceptions about different social issues are diverse and influenced by different factors. Among this are philosophical beliefs, personal attitudes and value systems. The perceptions play an integral role in influencing the decision making process of humans. This has been experienced since historical times and renowned philosophers also grappled with the implications. In Crito, Socrates struggles with the conflicts between personal beliefs and the public legal expectations. The inherent inconsistency impacts on his decision making process. This is further compounded by the fact that the ultimate decision had far reaching implications on his life. The paper argues that Socrates did not make a wise decision in this respect.

Key Words: Crito, philosophy, decision making

Introduction

Human perceptions about different aspects of life tend to differ considerably since historical times. Usually, these are deeply ingrained in their understanding and acknowledgement of the various social issues that impact on this holistic wellbeing. In historical times, these were apparent in the philosophical beliefs and practices that guided human behavior as well as value systems. The differences in perceptions and the relative significant effects on human welfare are well exemplified in Plato’s Crito. This paper provides a critical analysis of the decision of Socrates in Crito. In particular, it argues that the decision that Socrates made was faulty and compounded by a host of inconsistencies. To provide a harmonic consideration, it begins by detailing the relative occurrences and highlights the inherent gaps that undermine the credibility of Socrates’ ultimate decision.

During his very last days in the prison, Crito makes significant efforts to persuade Socrates to escape from prison in a bit to save his life. However, Socrates remains adamant and believes that escaping from prisons amounts to disobedience and injury of the state. According to his philosophical point of view, citizens are not supposed to defend themselves against any evil by doing evil. He believes that regardless of the state having been unjust with regards to condemning him to death, he does not need to retaliate by escaping. In stead, he needs to obey the law or persuade it otherwise. At this point, it is certain that there is some degree of incoherence and contradiction with regards to the decision that Socrates assumes. He asserts that the respective laws were unjust but fails to take a practical decision to counter the scenario.

From a philosophical point of view, this is wrong as it does not safeguard the welfare of future populations. Arguably, they would be compelled to align their practices to the authoritative and demeaning Athenian laws. Also worth mentioning is the recognition that humans are social beings and need social environments to grow and develop. Historically, Athens did not provide viable conditions that would support the social growth as well as development of humans. This implies that whereas Socrates was obligated to obey all the laws in a bit to safeguard the survival of the state, the state did not reciprocate. In other words, the feeling was not mutual and therefore unfair. According to Plato (1959), Socrates asserts that “integrity, institutions and laws, are the most precious possessions of mankind” (p. 47)

Basically, Socrates maintains that civil disobedience is wrong and should not be encouraged under all circumstance. Modern critics indicate that despite having a valid argument with respect to justifying the need to respect the law, this goes against his personal beliefs and principles. In his review, Plato (1959) cites, “both in war and in courts and everywhere else, one must obey the commands of one’s country, or persuade it as to the nature of justice” (p. 51). In this respect, Socrates implies that through the laws, citizens have a chance to persuade their states with regards to what is unjust or just. Initially, he indicated that a good life needs to be characterized by questioning the concept of virtues. Thus in a bit to persuade a country in to reviewing the aspects of right or wrong, a certain degree of civil disobedience is inevitable. Despite being neither necessary nor right, in some cases, civil disobedience is imperative and not wrong. At this point, it can be ascertained that civil disobedience is an innate aspect of reviewing as well as questioning justice and value and it cannot be avoided completely.

In Crito, Socrates believed that the citizens of the state have an obligation to obey the laws of the state in all instances. According to him, the individuals that decide to live within the geographic dimensions of the given state implicitly agree to always follow the laws that the respective state stipulates. He indicates the individuals that do not agree with the legal provisions of the state have an option of leaving it to seek for residence elsewhere. The fact that they decide to stay implies that they are not only ready but also willing to adhere to the laws of the land. At this point, it should be appreciated that this is merely an implicit presumption that does not need to apply to the entire inhabitants of the state. This is fallacious in the sense that Socrates likens himself to the citizens of the state. From a philosophical point of view, this is faulty because individuals tend to harbor different beliefs and attitudes toward a wide rage of social issues. This is regardless of the fact that they might be socialized within similar a context. Social diversity needs to be put in consideration especially when dealing with sensitive issues pertaining to life and death.

Also, Socrates cites that just like a parent is to a child, the state is equally important to the citizens. In this consideration, just as it is not right for the child to disobey his or her parents, citizens would also be wrong if they disobeyed the laws of the state. Emergent research has raised various concerns regarding the legitimacy of this analogy. In this respect, it should be appreciated that the aspect of obeying parents is usually temporary. Specifically, children only obey their parents because they (parents) make vital decisions regarding their (children) lives. With time, the children outgrow this stage and as they grow older, they learn to make their individual decisions. However, in Socrates’ view point, citizens need to obey the state laws till they die. Certainly, there is an inherent inconsistency that makes it difficult to reconcile the two. Arguably, the relationship between children and parents can not be likened to that of the state and the citizens.

Notably, Socrates was committed to respecting the rules of the Athens regardless of the fact that they were incorrect, unequal and overly authoritative. The respective obedience was accorded to the state on the pretext that it gave the former certain goods like birth, nurturance and education. Seemingly, by Socrates being bound to these laws, he can be considered a slave. The contract in this regard favors the law at the expense of Socrates.

Plato (1959) in this instance maintains:

We bore you, reared you and educated you.

Can you then say, first of all, that you are not our offspring and our slave-you and your ancestors before you? And if it is true, do you think that justice is on an equal basis between you and us that it is right for you to do in return what we may undertake to do to you? (p. 50)

This assertion gives Socrates a lower status and compels him to respect the law, irrespective of its implications on his wellbeing. Irrespective of having contended that exercising of one’s philosophy is ideal, Socrates fails to practice this preposition and contradicts his personal philosophy. In this respect, he would have been set the best example by challenging the Athenian laws that were not only authoritative but also demeaning and unjust. By doing this, he would have set the best example and safeguarded the welfare of future populations that was highly depended on the nature of the laws. As such, he would have acted as a pace setter for change and assumption of critical social values.

Conclusion

In sum, it can be concluded that personal beliefs and practices differ significantly between differ persons. These have diverse impacts on a person’s attitude, behavior and decision making practices. As it has come out from the study, Socrates failed dismally to put his philosophical beliefs in practice. The decisions he undertook were contrary to his individual belief with regards to the relationship between life and virtues. As much as obedience is vital, it can not be entirely eliminated from the social system because of the role that it plays in triggering change and checking the political system. The obedience of a child to his parents can not be likened and is not analogous to the obedience of citizens to states. Thus the ultimate decision that Socrates took to obey the laws was misinformed. It also undermined his ability to trigger change in the society by emphasizing the importance of justice.

Reference

Plato. (1959). Plato: The last days of Socrates. (H. Tredennick, Trans.). New York: Penguin Books.