(I). Different people define friendship in different ways. Friendship is a relationship between two people in which they have faith on each other, they mutually care for each other, know each other as a person, trust each other, and this ultimately makes them friends. Yes, Crito is a good friend of Socrates because he shows that he cares about him.
In Plato’s dialogue “Crito,” Crito’s presence at the prison early in the morning, fearing the Socrates will be executed soon is the very first evidence that he is a good friend to Socrates and cares about him. Socrates himself is surprised that Crito has come to visit him at such an early hour (43a). As any good friend, who would be concerned about the welfare of another friend, Crito admits that he is worried about Socrates’ impending death and was not able to sleep because of this concern. Crito also tells Socrates that like all of his friends, he is extremely saddened to discover that Socrates may be executed the next day (43c).
Although perturbed by the fact that Socrates has willingly accepted his execution, Crito still proves his loyalty towards his friend by hurriedly offering and requesting Socrates to let him help him escape from the prison. Crito admits that he would never be able to replace Socrates as a friend. Crito willingly offers to make a few relevant bribes here and there to aid in Socrates’ escape and he himself admits that he does not value money over the life of his dear friend (44c).
When Socrates refuses Crito’s offer, Crito assumes that Socrates does not want to escape because he is afraid it would put Crito and his other friends in danger (44e). However, Crito states he is willing to face any kind of danger for Socrates (45a), thus proving his genuine friendship and loyalty to him.
(II). Although Plato’s Crito and Martin Luther King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail were written years apart, there is one particular aspect that ties the two to each other. Socrates’ refusal to escape can be related to King’s refusal to act violently in resistance to racism against his people. In his Letter from Birmingham Jail, King makes it apparent that he opposes violence and he remains steadfast on his view till the very end. From this it can be assumed that if King was transported back in time and was to visit Socrates in prison instead of Crito, King would probably not try to convince Socrates to escape from prison. If King stuck to his views till the very end, he would certainly not try to convince Socrates to abandon his views for just a chance to live a bit longer (53e). For King, convincing Socrates to escape would mean disproving the whole justice system, and both men believed that would be wrong.
Some may argue that King would use his ‘just vs. unjust law’ argument to respond to Socrates’ ‘Laws of Athens’ argument, but that would only be applicable to some extent. Socrates’ argument would outweigh King’s argument, and despite encouraging the idea of breaking unjust laws, would come to understand Socrates resistance to dodge the entire judicial system of the time (53e). King would understand Socrates’ reasoning that even breaking this one unjust law would demonstrate a disapproval of the entire legal system. Sure, King was fighting against some statutes that were unjust to the people of color, but he never claimed the whole American legal system was unjust. Indeed, like Socrates, King too was imprisoned for rejecting an unjust law, namely the law of segregation, however, after being detained, he is aware that he is now under procedural laws, which are just for everyone, as in Socrates’ case. If King believed that the entire American legal system was unjust, King himself would have escaped from prison, and the fact that he did not is evidence that he would understand Socrates’ argument of Laws of Athens.
Regardless of what Socrates’ meant when he argued that his escape from prison just to retaliate against injustice would injure the state (49d), if Socrates’ argument was really valid, if his escape would really harm the state and if there was violence involved, then King would probably agree with Socrates’ stance. In his Letter from Birmingham Jail, King writes about accepting blows without retaliating, and assuming that Socrates’ escape would indeed harm the Athenian state, King would view Socrates’ stance as a way of accepting blows without retaliating. However, if there was a probability that Socrates’ escape would not really harm the state, and since Crito offered a non-violent means of helping Socrates’ escape, King would have most likely disagreed with Socrates’ stance. In simple words, King would have argued that as long as the retaliation was against injustice and non-violent, it is morally obligatory to retaliate against it.
When it comes to civil disobedience, regardless of whether King himself would try to convince Socrates to escape, if Socrates actually did escape, King would not regard it as an act of civil disobedience. Martin Luther King would not regard Socrates’ escape as an act of civil disobedience if Socrates chose to escape because he would rather view it as an act of breaking an unjust law for which he was imprisoned in the first place. Sure, King would perhaps see Socrates’ escape as a rebellion against the entire legal system, but since he escaped after being imprisoned for breaking an unjust law, he would not regard it as civil disobedience.
Works Cited
King, Martin Luther. "Letter from a Birmingham Jail."African Studies Center, University of Pennsylvania. African Studies Center, 16 Apr 1963. Web. 15 May 2013.
King, Martin Luther. "Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience."Big Fat Genius dot com. Big Fat Genius dot com. Web. 15 May 2013.
Plato, . "Crito." Clarke University. Clarke University. Web. 15 May 2013.
