The Review of the Crito, Essay Example

The Crito has been popularly known for its sense of justice and portrayal of strict moral actions. In the Crito, we see the life of a person who is trying to seek justice for his moral actions. In this case, Socrates tries to use justice reasoning rather than cultural values to vindicate actions whether right or wrong. In this conversation, the Socrates is seen to make attempts of adopting a moral point of view of these cases rather than that of religion and society.

The story begins with the conviction of Socrates; he was sent to jail for the prosecution. During the same time, the ship was out sailing for a sacred mission, and this dictated that no executions were to be done in its absence. This led to confinement of Socrates to his cell for nearly 30 days. Two days before return of the ship, Socrates’ old friend, Crito, comes about and informs him of the plans that were underway to help the Socrates escape to another country. In response, Socrates refuses the idea, claiming that by doing so, he would be breaching the laws of the land.

Crito argues and tells Socrates that he should not go with the multitudes opinion since it would give an unfair judgment. He goes ahead to admit that anyone who would be in the Socrates’ position would do the same (escape). However, Socrates is adamant to this decision and says that opinions may be right or wrong, but the most important of all is following the correct opinion. From the conversation, Socrates is seen to introduce various elements of justice such as the distinction between the true and the false opinions and asserts that the authority in this case is the actual truth.

When referring to opinion of the many, Crito seem to be strongly inclining to the notion that is good, true or right simply because it earns support of the majority. Socrates equally argues and challenges Crito that the majority opinions may support escaping, but in the real sense could it be the right solution? From the Socrates argument, the following elements of justice are evident.
Socrates tells Crito that living rightly is one of the most important things. He perceives living justly and living well to be similar and tells Crito that it would be wrong for him to go against the laws of the jail and escape.

In addition, he infers that one needs not to do wrong things. In his perception, he feels that an individual ought to be on the right side always even if others have wronged them. He also seems to condemn the doctrine of eye for an eye and states that even if someone has injured you, paying back would not be the right solution.

On his third premise, Socrates argues that a person needs to honor and always keep their agreements. Socrates urges that laws are always just and are always right; however, one can engage dialogue with justice to help prove their innocence. Thus, he agrees that the laws were not faulty, but the agreement of the majority were.

Conclusively, Socrates implication in all these is that it is not right to break the laws. Despite the fact that his life lay on the mercies of this plan and that of the law, he could not afford to go against it. The argument has thus developed from the opinions of the majority to that of justice, and that justice must take its course regardless of the persons on trial.