IntroductionSocrates argues in the Crito that he should not escape his death sentence because it is not just. Crito is distressed by Socrates' reasoning and wishes to convince him to escape since Crito and his friends can provide the ransom demanded by the guard. If not for himself, Socrates should escape for the sake of his friends, his sons, and those who benefit from his teaching. The argument of Socrates and Crito starts from this point. In passing, I would like to note that, although I believe another objection could be made to Socrates' conclusions in "The Philosopher's Defense", for reasons of space I have not written the fourth section "The "failure of the philosopher's defense". I. Explanation of the philosopher's argument Socrates' response to Crito's question "Why don't you escape if I give you the means?" is that the main criterion of moral action is justice, and escaping would be unjust, so he should not escape. Socrates believes that if he were to escape, it would break the system of law enforcement, because avoiding punishment when a city has deemed it necessary makes the law ineffective if there are no consequences in the event. of violation. He would be a “destroyer” of the law (Crito, 51a), an injustice he does not wish to commit. II. Objection to the Philosopher's Argument Socrates' fear that breaking the law would render the law ineffective is valid, but Crito would assert a more comprehensive perspective on Socrates' escape: what are the net effects of Socrates' acceptance of his death sentence? It would be a misfortune for all his friends, for all those who benefit from his teaching, and he would leave his sons prematurely (Crito, 44c). Although Crito does not develop this point further, it could be easily extended: no one "is...... middle of paper...... Socrates arrives at a conclusion that defies a common sense understanding of justice. Nothing about his death sentence "seems" fair, but after careful consideration we see that his escape would be as unsuccessful as his death, and that in a certain sense Socrates must obey every order Athens gives him since he benefited from his citizenship. Despite these compelling arguments, he makes a few arguments that don't hold water, such as that he would destroy the law if he were to escape - this is an exaggerated claim that calls for refutation. Furthermore, although his escape would generally be useless for him and his comrades, other arguments could argue that citizens of other cities would benefit from his teaching and act as a civilizing force. However, for reasons of space in this essay, I have not written a fourth section.