According to the teachings of Socrates, “one must never intentionally inflict wrong on another, even when one has been wronged oneself.” In stating this, Socrates is validating the belief that “two wrongs don’t make a right.” In essence, Socrates believed that one cannot cure one evil by committing another, because in doing so the person is just hurting themselves. According to Crito however, it is acceptable to willingly do wrong depending on the circumstances. Crito explains that justice can only be truly served if one returned evil for evil as many believed, he uses Socrates situation to support his claims. Crito clarifies that the city of Athens wronged Socrates first, therefore, Socrates has the right to escape form the prison and break the law. Based on Crito’s claims it is understood …show more content…
By escaping from the prison, Socrates understands that he would be committing an evil act which would in no way remedy the wrong that was done to him. Ultimately, Socrates declares that evil must not be overcome with evil but with good. According to Socrates, there are no ways in which wrongdoing is considered “good and honorable.” Socrates lives his life based on the beliefs that to live a good and honorable life one must obey his morals. Escaping from the prison to Socrates represents a dishonorable act because he is going against his teachings and the Laws of Athens. The “good life” to Socrates is being able to ask questions and acquire knowledge, based on the understanding that he “knows nothing.” Socrates advices Crito to only listen to the opinions of those who understand the difference between “just” and “unjust” because only then will he understand why it would be wrong of Socrates to escape or “willingly do wrong”. Although Socrates was prosecuted unjustly, Socrates must abide by his beliefs and face his punishment, in doing so, he would be doing something “good and