If Socrates did not approve of the laws of Athens, he had the opportunity to persuade his city otherwise under the democracy.[28] Evidently the main opportunity Socrates had to persuade was in his speech at his trial. He could persuade the Athenians that he was law-abiding and upright in his actions. He failed to do so, but not for want of a forum to defend himself. Further, he could have participated in the political process, especially in the Assembly, to propose new laws or repeal old laws that he found unsatisfactory.
In his trial, Socrates gave his reasons for avoiding political activism. But that was his choice; the constitution of Athens did not bar him from taking part in legislation and policy-making decisions. And of course he served his city as a Councilor with distinction, for a year appointment (ch. 19.4*)—though he does not bring that up here.
The Laws go on to point out that Socrates could have proposed exile as a counter-punishment at his trial. Then he talked big, refusing to accept exile, and acted unafraid of death. Now, when he is facing death, does he change his mind? “Now,” they say, “in an effort to overthrow us, you do what the lowliest slave would do: you try to run away from the contracts and agreements you made with us as a citizen.” To become a citizen of Athens was not something that happened by default. When a young man born of Athenian parents turned eighteen, his name was put forward to the officials in his deme as a new citizen (see ch. 3.4*). His age and parentage were established by the sworn testimony of witnesses. By the fourth century BC, if not earlier, the new citizen was enrolled in the cadets, received training, and performed military and civic duties for two years as his introduction into the citizen body.[29] The practices of the state instilled in Socrates an awareness from a young age of his responsibility as a citizen. Even if he had made no formal contracts, he still saw his duty to the state in contractual terms.
The Laws go on to say that if Socrates goes to a well-governed city, he will be suspect as a lawbreaker. He could, on the other hand, go to Thessaly, where Crito has friends, a place that is notoriously loose in its customs. The rowdy Thessalian cowboys will enjoy hearing stories of how he put on some disguise to escape capture, as if he were a character in a comedy. There he will have to play court to the local grandees and become their creature.[30] “And your conversations about justice and the rest of virtue, what about them?”[31] Ultimately the problem for Socrates is not the practical one of how to make a new life abroad, but the moral one of living up to his own ideals.
“But, Socrates,” the Laws conclude, “listen to us who have nurtured you, and do not value either children or life itself or anything else more than justice, in order that when you arrive at Hades you may justify yourself by your actions when you defend yourself to the rulers there. … As things stand, you depart, if you must go, not as one wronged by us the Laws, but as one wronged by men. But if you escape so shamefully by wronging and doing evil in retaliation, transgressing your agreements and covenants with us and doing wrong to those who least deserve it, your friends, your country, and us, we will resent you while you live, and our brothers, the Laws in Hades, will not receive you propitiously, knowing you did your best to destroy us. Don’t let Crito tell you what to do, but hearken to us.”[32]
In Socrates’ hands the elenchus is a powerful tool to refute bad ideas. Here he makes himself and Crito the answerers to pointed questions about the course of action Crito has proposed. By making himself the chief answerer, Socrates puts the onus on himself without shaming Crito. But the questions are really for Crito and his friends who are planning the jailbreak. The Laws bring up practical difficulties and absurdities. But the real question is the one Socrates raises early in the discussion: is the escape from prison right, that is, morally acceptable? Or is it wrong, on just the same grounds Socrates always adduces to show an action is wrong: it produces evil?
Socrates rejects retaliation in principle, precisely because it produces, or aims at producing, evil. The evil intended in the present case is all the worse because it is aimed at an inherently good institution, the laws. But Socrates rejects retaliation even against enemies and evildoers, not to mention beneficial institutions. The fact that Socrates is facing death, as he pointed out at his trial, is irrelevant to the moral question. Socrates encourages Crito to look at the problem from a moral rather than a practical point of view, but Crito cannot; only Socrates maintains a sufficiently detached perspective to discuss the problem as a moral question.
The interrogation of the Laws reveals the inconsistency of Crito’s plan: it requires Socrates to do harm against the laws and institutions of his city, and hence to do evil. Socrates is far from thinking that Athens is perfect, either in its constitution or in the administrative actions of its leaders. Yet it is governed by law in a way that allows its citizens due process.
Socrates has had his day in court, however brief, however much the cards were stacked against him. Just as a party that loses an election, given a fair electoral process, has no right to revolt against the government, the defendant in a trial, given a fair judicial process, has no right to flee the punishment inflicted. Any such action would demonstrate the citizen’s disloyalty to the institutions of the city and subvert the rule of law itself. If Socrates is a critic of the Athenian constitution, he is more fundamentally an advocate of the rule of law. And he is fully invested in moral action as the starting point of all action, private or political.
Socrates cannot escape from prison without violating his own principles, principles both he and Crito have been committed to for a long time. Socrates cannot escape from prison without doing harm.
The arguments of the Laws have been Socrates’ own arguments.
“As things seem to me now,” says Socrates to Crito, “know that if you have anything to say on the other side, you will be speaking in vain. If, however, you think you can do something more, speak.”
“I have nothing to say, Socrates.”
“Then let it be, Crito, and let’s go through with this, since that is where the god is leading us.”[33]
[28].See Kraut 1984: 54-90.
[29].Aristotle Constitution of Athens 42; MacDowell 1978: 69-70; Todd 1993: 177-181.
[30].Plato Crito 53b-e, cf. 45c.
[31].Plato Crito 53e-54a.
[32].Plato Crito 54b-d.
[33].Plato Crito 54d-e.