IntroductionSocrates argues in the Crito that he should not escape his death sentence because it is not fair. Crito is distressed by Socrates' reasoning and wishes to convince him to escape since Crito and his friends can provide the ransom requested by the guardian. If it were not for himself, Socrates would have to flee for the sake of his friends, his children, and those who benefit from his teaching. The argument of Socrates and Crito proceeds from this point. Incidentally, I would like to note that, although I believe a further objection can be made to Socrates' conclusions in "The Philosopher's Defense", due to space considerations, I did not write the fourth section “Failure of the Philosopher's Defense”.I .Explanation of the philosopher's argumentSocrates' response to Crito's question “Why will you not run away if I provide you with the means?” is that the primary criterion for moral action is justice, and running away would be unjust, so he should not run away. Socrates argues that if he were to escape, this would break the law enforcement system since avoiding punishment when a city has deemed it necessary renders the law ineffective if there are no consequences for its violation. It 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' concern that breaking the law would render the law ineffective is valid, but Crito would argue for a more global perspective on Socrates' escape: what are the net effects of the Socrates' acceptance of his death sentence? It would be a disgrace for all his friends, for all the people who benefit from his teaching, and he would leave his children prematurely (Crito, 44c). Although Crito does not develop this point further, it could easily be extended: let no one “let… middle of paper… Socrates reaches a conclusion that challenges the commonsense understanding of justice. Nothing about his death sentence "seems" right, but upon further consideration, we find that his escape would have been as fruitless as his death, and that in some sense Socrates owes his obedience to whatever orders Athens gives him from the moment who benefited from his death sentence. citizenship. Despite these compelling arguments, he makes some points that don't hold water, such as that he would destroy the law if he were to flee – this is an exaggerated claim that invites refutation. Furthermore, although his escape would have been generally unsuccessful for him and his companions, further arguments could hold 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.Works CitedCritoApologia