Socrates, popularly known for his contribution to philosophy, was a prominent figure during the late antiquity. Unfortunately, he was imprisoned in the seventies on charges of impiety and moral corruption, which prompted his untimely death. Crito covers a philosophical dialogue he held with Crito, his friend, while in prison awaiting his execution. Crito persuades Socrates to escape prison to avoid death, but Socrates contemplates escaping and going against Athens’s laws. In the conversation held by the duo, Socrates brings up the issue of the sort of life not worth living and if escaping would lead to such a life. This paper argues that Socrates’ perspective of a life not worth living is a life lacking moral integrity and characterized by unjust actions and that his escape would lead to such a life.

Socrates thinks that a life without moral integrity is not worth living. In all of his conversations with Crito, it is evident that Socrates stands by his morals and virtues, even if it means dying for them. At one point, he informs “Crito that no matter what a man has done to you, you should never repay the favor by harming him” (Plato 44). Socrates puts more emphasis on living according to one’s morals and principles. To him, a life without virtue and morals is not worth living. For instance, he claims, “we will injure and corrupt that aspect of ourselves that is enhanced by good deeds and diminished by unjust activities if we do not heed his instructions” (Plato 42). Apparently, among Socrates’ principles is to abide by the laws of Athens, whereby breaking them would undermine his morals. On the contrary, Socrates believes that living according to one’s principles, morals, and the laws of the city that birthed them is paramount to living a worthy life. He reiterates that it is preferable to fall a victim of injustice than to execute another wrong act as payback, as doing so would ruin a person’s moral integrity. Socrates asks, “if life is worth living for us if we have a corrupted part of ourselves that causes harm through unjust behavior while benefiting from just action” pointing out his moral grounds (Plato 42). Thus, fueled by his morals, Socrates think that it is not worth living a life devoid of moral integrity.

Apart from moral corruption, Socrates also thinks that a life attributed to unjust deeds is not worth living. He makes it clear to Crito that doing an unjust act and causing harm is not worth it. Besides abiding by moral principles, Socrates raises the essence of adhering to justice principles. Crito agrees with him that “one should not commit a wrong, atone for a wrong, or inflict injury on another person” (Plato 44). To him, doing wrong is unjust; even if one is sentenced unjustly, Socrates uses the example of his escape to illustrate how he would be committing a wrong act. Notably, it would have violated his justice principles as Socrates would be avoiding his punishments, which is not just. As illustrated, “leaving the prison without the city’s permission would do harm to people who do not deserve it and would go against the just agreement between Socrates and the city as Socrates chose death over exile” (Plato 44). He would have also done wrong to his friends, who will suffer the consequences of his escape. Accordingly, “his friends would find themselves in the danger of exile, disenfranchisements, and loss of property” (Plato 46). To Socrates, such a life is not worth it as it goes beyond causing harm as it also prompts corruption of one’s virtues and societal order. Evidently, Socrates held that “man’s most prized possessions are virtue and justice, combined with righteous conduct and the rules” (Plato 47). Therefore, for him, a life in accordance with just actions is preferable for the good of an individual and the society for large. Given his tenets on justice and just action, a life attributed to unjust actions is not worth living.

Socrates’ escape from prison would lead to a life not worth living, characterized by unjust actions and a lack of moral integrity. This is because Socrates adheres to his justice and moral principles, and the escape would have contradicted his beliefs. Interestingly, Socrates obeys the laws of the city, even if its punishment on him is wrong. However, his escape would mean breaking the Athenian law and the agreement he had with the city; hence running from his punishment would be an act of disobedience (Plato 44). Furthermore, the escape would have been an unjust action as it would do harm to his friends and the city in destroying social order; hence escaping prison would prompt such a life. In addition, Socrates escaping prison would destroy his moral integrity and what he stood for. The aftermath of his escape would impact Socrates at a personal level as well as ruin his philosophical reputation. According to Crito, “Socrates raises the question of where his conversations regarding justice and virtue will go” highlighting how his reputation would be tarnished (Plato 47).Overall, going against the Athenian laws would lead to a worthless life as it would prompt the loss of moral integrity, and it would be an unjust action that would cause more harm to other people and Athens at large.

To sum up, it is evident from the above discussion and the text, ‘Crito,” that the philosopher, Socrates, thinks that a life lacking moral integrity and filled with wrongdoings is a life not worth it. Clearly, Socrates stood by his moral and justice tenets, despite facing execution. He explains the essence of returning wrong for a wrong act and abiding by the rules to Crito. Through compromising virtues and moral values and engaging in unjust deeds, a person negatively impacts their life and that of others, whereby, according to Socrates, it is not a worthy life. On the other hand, it is also apparent that his escape from prison would have led to such a life as Socrates would be going against the beliefs he stood for. Also, the act would have caused harm to others, which is unjust, and hence would have contributed to a worthless life.