Assuming that we take Socrates’ view that the agreement is valid, it is possible to understand how it could justify his decision. Socrates interaction with the Laws as his “friends”, means that all his arguments both political and moral are turned into an interaction. This is important, in Socrates’ contemplation because justice to the ancient Greeks, concerned actions between people, hence, escaping would be injuring a person. Consequently, it becomes harder to justify breaking the Laws once they have been personified, since they can now be harmed.
Socrates, feels escaping would harm the state, and is therefore, being unjust. Socrates likens them to his parents; they have given him somewhere to stay, nurtured and educated him. In summation of this; Socrates argues that in the same way, that we obey our parents unconditionally and don’t use force against them; we should also obey the laws, even if they are unjust. Socrates’ justifies his agreement and hence, his decision by providing this analogy. He shows subservience to the Laws; they are to be "soothed, and gently and reverently entreated when angry, even more than a father, and ...if not persuaded, to be obeyed...". He is obligated to either persuade the Laws to change or failing that, obey them. Hence, abiding by this premise, he agrees to face death.
We have now considered how the agreement is valid and can justify the decision to die, from Socrates’ point of view. However, when this is considered further, Socrates never examines if his agreement with Athens itself is actually just and valid. By this I mean - if Athens has wronged him, then has the State itself not actually broken the agreement? A right and indeed duty of the agreement, is for Socrates to change what he does not like about the law; however, he cannot do this because he is not allowed to teach philosophy to the youth of Athens.
Consequently, he fails to see that the State has broken its own tacit agreement which ought to be mutual, not merely upheld by Socrates. Athens should allow a forum for change, but instead the State claims Socrates’ attempt to instigate change undermined it. The Laws ask him, "Do you imagine that a state can subsist…in which the decisions of law have no power, but are set aside and trampled by individuals?”. The Laws can only uphold the State, if they are applied stringently with no conditions; they cannot be disobeyed when it suits the individual. This is vital in informing Socrates’ choice to die. If the State has not given him the right to try and persuade change, then this so-called tacit agreement no longer applies to Socrates. Also his argument that, Laws like our parents, should not be questioned is invalid because, children do grow up and at some point will question their parents. The Law should provide for this by-product of growing up and yet Socrates has been punished for growing up. He also fails to realise that he has now lost any opportunity to persuade the State to let him go. He has been left with no outlet, but escaping. Surely, this contradicts the mutual agreement. Escaping ought to be therefore justified.
However, it is possible to refute this by arguing that retaliation to the State’s unjust behaviour would be wrong. Socrates argues that nobody should never do anything wrong even when wronged, “we must do no wrong…nor when injured injure in return…for we must not injure no one at all…”. Hence, we should never injure anyone, even in retaliation. Finally he argues that there is no difference between injuring someone and wronging them. Following this line of thought, Socrates is arguing that, despite being unjustly sentenced to death, he cannot escape and hence wrong the State. It would be akin to inflicting an injury. By not endorsing retaliation, his decision is justified. Arguably, by conforming to an “impious” agreement and hence facing death, Socrates is preserving an unjust State. Such unjust can only harm his soul and hence completely contradict his own philosophy.
It is ironic that Socrates sees the Laws as just and yet agrees that the prosecutors are unjust, because they will cause his death. Only his personification of the Laws allows him to see them as two separate beings and hence convince him to act justly. Socrates argues that one should always avoid doing wrong and breaking the Laws would be wrong, as he proves through his argument of a tacit agreement. Breaking a just agreement is hence akin to injuring them. However, if he has been wronged by the individual Athenians rather than the Laws, then escaping cannot possibly harm the Laws but would instead harm the Athenian judges. His argument is clearly flawed.
In conclusion, objectively, there is a tacit agreement between Socrates and the State but it is by no means valid and nor does it justify Socrates’ decision to die. However, it is important to accept that the agreement is between individual and State and hence, if Socrates’ chooses to abide by it, it not only justifies his decision but also dictates it. The agreement needs to be considered from Socrates’ point of view. It is also important to remember, that he has had the vision from the Illiad, telling him that he will die in three days and hence, he is convinced that he must die. This is surely, bound to cloud his thought patterns somewhat. Besides, escaping Athens would not do the youth any good because living in exile would be the same as dying. Socrates has clearly thought this out and realised that dying would be the just thing to do. He has been persuaded by the voice of the Athenian Laws. The agreement, flawed as it may be, justifies Socrates’ own decision to face death as opposed to escaping.
Bibliography
Plate – Crito.
Audi, Robert - The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Kraut, Richard - Socrates and the State, Princeton UP 1984.
Gerasimos, Santas – Socrates: Philosophy in Plato’s early dialogues, Routledge 1978.
