 Hello. Welcome to another lecture on the course Ethics. Today, we are going to talk about a Platonic Dialogue, a Dialogue written by Plato that is called Titled Crito. Now, Ancient Greece is where Moral Philosophy as such started many, many centuries back. Let me give you a brief about the Greek Philosophers with whom Moral Philosophy started. We have Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. These names are very heard of names. Socrates with whom the Moral Philosophy began as a discourse. In fact, in certain terms he is called the Father of Philosophy in the Western Tradition. Plato was the disciple of Socrates and Aristotle was the disciple of Plato. Now, Socrates never wrote anything. He has never systematized his philosophy. He has been what we would call a common day street philosopher. He has been in the sense of the phrase, the seeker of truth. The method of Socrates has been to indulge in something called dialectics. Now, a dialectic is a means of conversation in which the objective is the truth and gradually over a conversation between two or more agents, the knowledge body is evolved. Now, coming to Crito. Crito is a dialogue written by Plato with Socrates who plays as the main character in the dialogue. Now, Socrates as I mentioned earlier has never written anything. He has in fact been a street philosopher, but his disciple and pupil Plato has been an extensive system builder and he has put forth entire systems of philosophy which are valued even millennia after it is being written. Now, Plato has true to a sincere disciple has been, has wrote plays in which Socrates has been, has been the protagonist. Now, Crito is one such play. The story of Socrates goes this way. Socrates was searching for the truth. He was a seeker of true knowledge. So, he started conversing, engaging young people in debates that something like what do you understand by courage. Only in the fashion of dialectic to arrive that well anybody who claimed that they knew values or any such knowledge claims were actually not very sure of it. So, Socrates in the history of western moral philosophy, Socrates searched for reason as the basis of values. Now, let us remind ourselves at a time when Socrates was living, there was a time which was dominated by tradition and by religion. So, all our moral values have been coming from either tradition or religion. Now, Socrates looked for something else as a basis of values. Socrates looked for reason as the basis of values. Now, this new search incited a lot of thinking from the story of Socrates goes this way. Socrates was, if I may say, a street philosopher going around looking for answers to values. Now, Socrates did not rely on tradition or religion for answers to value for the domain of values. In fact, Socrates was keen on seeing their reason as a source of arriving at one's values of reason being the paradigm of human knowledge. Now, considering this when Socrates engaged in what is now known as dialectics, there was upheaval in the state. The statesmen decided and were decided that Socrates was a threat to their state that the Socratic way was actually spoiling the Athenian youth. So, they actually imprisoned him. They imprisoned him on charges close to sedition and as per the laws at that time, Socrates was not only imprisoned, but sentenced to death. Now, followers of Socrates and friends of Socrates who were also wealthy and well-endowed wanted to save Socrates from what many thought was an unjust act of the state in imprisoning and sentencing to death Socrates. So, Crito was one such friend of Socrates who decided on teaming up to help Socrates escape from the prison. Now, whether Socrates agreed to escape or not was a question that was answered eventually by time, but yes as you could guess now that Socrates did not agree to be allowed or agree to be a part to the escape plan proposed by Crito. Anyway, now more to the slide to know about what is the basic plot of the play. Now, the plot is when Socrates was imprisoned and Crito has made his way to the prison of Socrates to help him or to discuss with him the strategy of escape. Let me read out the plot. Socrates is imprisoned and is sentenced to death by the state. Why Socrates is accused of corrupting the Athenian youth by raising questions about morality which are not convincingly answered by tradition. The Socratic method is the method of dialectics. Socrates incites the claimed knowers into a conversation and in the course of the conversation the ignorance or the incorrectness of the knowers claims is exposed. Socrates' intention is not to defeat the knower, but to reach the truth. So, as we can see that Socrates was not hell bent on defeating others or wanting to show his superiority in the skills of argumentation like the sophists of those time did, but Socrates wanted to arrive at knowledge which was beyond doubt and for that he engaged the claimed knowers into conversations which later were was called dialectics into which conversations which led him to arrive or led them to arrive that well there is perhaps knows the claim knowers also are not very sure about their claims. Now, this is to be noted that it was not a malafide intention of Socrates to defeat others, but just as a seeker of truth and to eliminate all knowledge which is in the realm of doubts. Socrates that way has no claim to make instead he is a seeker of true facts and valid knowledge. Some of the friends and well-wishers of Socrates wanted him to escape from the prison and the death sentence. Crito is one such friend who has sneaked into the prison to gain Socrates consent. The process of escape and an asylum in another state would not cause any harm to the friends of Socrates, but Socrates disagrees. Now, this is where the first moral dialogue in the tradition of western philosophy starts. Now, Socrates is of the opinion that well he should not escape from the prison and he should willfully take the punishment that the state has given it to him and this on very rational moral grounds. Now, for some at that time in the point of world history this was quite a novel concept that to be rational is to be moral and to be moral is to be rational. This is the dictum that Socrates propelled. Now, by going through this dialogue we are trying to see the first formal discourse that took place in the domain of morality in world history especially in the history of the western world. So, now coming back to because the entire course would be talking about moral philosophy and some of the times from the western tradition. We need to see how it evolved as a discourse. Now, as we see that Socrates disagrees that even though the process of escape from the prison was guaranteed and it was also guaranteed that there would be a comfortable life waiting for him in the country which grants him asylum and also that in this process none of his friends would be endangered. So, having these preconditions one would naturally like to escape. Now, mind you Socrates that time was 70 years old. So, Socrates still thinks that well it is wrong that for me to escape from the sentence that the state I belong to has given me. Now, let us look at the situation. The situation is one that I think that I have been unjustly sentenced to that I have friends who can without any notable damage to them help me escape and give me grant me asylum in a country and three that I would think that I have many more useful dialectics or to engage with people at large even in the country which grants me asylum. Having these three conditions does not it become obvious that I escape that I escape from a punishment which is unjust I escape to a country which is welcoming me I escape via means that cause no harm to the other why should I not escape perhaps this seems quite a queer situation. But then let us see what reasons Socrates gave us gave crypto for denying his offer of help and voluntarily embracing death and in death he lives on till today in death his dialogues have become immortal his conviction in his claims methods has become a legend and that is why because perhaps he chose to be to live by his conviction and die by his conviction then to live without his conviction that even now more than 2000 years from then we still read about him. Now, let us look at the reason why Socrates disagrees with crypto well first Socrates is of the claim that even though the majority of his friends and people would like Socrates to escape because all of them see Socrates perhaps as a gem as a jewel of humanity who would be who would encourage the youth not only the youth but encourage everyone to unbeaten tracks of knowledge because of his dialectics and his unusual for that time methods of questioning. However, even though everyone or majority of the people would wish that Socrates escape and survive for the betterment of humanity Socrates pays no heed to the question of majority to the view of the majority even if it is well wishers or friends. Socrates has very bluntly denied the opinion of majority as an opinion of coincidence of chance that the majority opinion can never be a determinant of what is right or what is wrong. He gives an example throughout this dialogue. This dialogue would be available at Project Gutenberg's website. So those of you who are interested in going through the details of the play can access it on the Project Gutenberg which is available on the Gutenberg website. Now coming back to Socrates' claim that well we the claim that Socrates makes is that majority should not matter and that important decisions or value decisions the decision that he takes has to come from reason and not from the view of his friends and people at large. Well he gives us this example that if we have to learn say some art like gymnastics would we not go to the expert to learn gymnastics rather than listen to the advices of also many people ready to advise about gymnastics. We would like to listen to the advice of a gymnast or of an expert who is himself perhaps a gymnast or has been a gymnast or who has proficiency in that field. So isn't the opinion of that person that expert more important than the opinion of people at large? Well most of us would prefer the expert. Now Socrates is of the opinion that well moral philosophy is also such a view that well we should where knowledge is arrived at by conversing with the expert rather than listening to the view of the majority. So Socrates tries to reason with Kratos who being a warm and personal friend wants Socrates to escape has planned the escape and appeals to Socrates for with various reasons that humanity would be benefited with his continued existence that is he has duty towards his children that he has duty towards his friends. So with so many appeals which Socrates fundamentally dismisses that well these appeals are not something that he would heed to. Now the first claim that Socrates makes is that we ought never to harm anyone. Socrates escaping would violate and show disregard for the state laws. Now coming back to Socrates first his claim was that well he should never harm anyone and escaping covertly or secretly is showing utter disregard for the state's laws. Now isn't it that this state that has he has been a part of and Socrates has lived in his state for over 70 years and has been very rarely been out of this state that whenever he has been whenever somebody is a part of a state chooses to be a citizen or continues to be a citizen chooses to continue to be a citizen of the state he has tacitly approved the agreement between or entered into an agreement between the individual and the state. Now Socrates makes a claim that well by being a part of Athens for such a long time he has tacitly agreed into the state he has never participated in any civil disobedience movement and he has largely been happy about the state of affairs in Athens. So this long tenure of unrebeled state is an indicator of his contentment or his acceptance of the laws of Athens and today when the laws of Athens requires him to be hanged till death so be it he shall stick to these laws. So by breaking by by escaping from this predicament it is breaking a commitment which according to Socrates is simply wrong. So Socrates tries to justify in this way also that well whatever commitment has been made implicitly or explicitly breaking it is wrong and therefore his escape is a breaking of the commitment of Socrates with the state. Now let us look at the final claim that why Socrates finds it wrong for him to escape. He says that the society or state is virtually one's parent and teacher and one ought to obey one's parents and teachers. Now if Socrates claim is again bent on this that now notice please keep in mind that this is a time when city states were very small in size and citizens and kings were and the rulers were very close to each other and were not insulated by any barriers. So as much as the family the society was also a part of upbringing a human being. So this kind of an upbringing entails a commitment according to Socrates. The commitment is to be honored because one has been brought up by society too and so it is almost a filial parental obligation. So unless and until one has rebelled in principle or in ethos to the ethos or the philosophy of the bringing up entity the parent or the family or the state then one is not justified in escaping from one's tacitly made agreement only because that agreement proves to be detrimental to one right now. This according to Aristotle would be an unprincipled way of behavior and this unprincipled way of behavior is what Socrates stands against. He is trying to look for principled behavior that what are the principles of correct behavior. Now for him this is clearly an incoherent and inconsistent behavior that one continues to be a part of an agreement till one is in gain and the moment one is not in gain or stands to lose something ceases to be a part of the agreement. This according to Socrates is clearly a behavior that is wrong and therefore when Crito's offer Crito and his friends when they offer an escape route to Socrates he simply refuses to join them justifying himself in this dialogue and justifying it to Crito that he is obliged to his state and even though he may not agree with the sentence that is awarded to him but if he has entered into part to an agreement with the state tacitly or explicitly he is bound to follow it and that is the right way to deal with any commitments made. So, Socrates chooses not to escape and a saddened Crito leaves the prison to leaving Socrates to be sentenced to death which he is which he does by taking the hemlock and slowly perishing. Cut please take a look at the presentation slide. This if you are intrigued by this brief rendering of Plato's dialogue then you are more than welcome to visit www.gutenberg.org and the full text of the dialogue is available freely on this website and there were a host of other classics available at this website too. Now this is briefly very briefly rendered the story of Socrates the story of the death of Socrates. Now it is for you to judge that whether Socrates died for the right reasons or was it a mistake was he justified in making the choice of not escaping and dying or was he not justified in it but what is essential here to note and to carry forward and why perhaps this dialogue and this text has been going on for ages is because it raises a very crucial question that is what is the basis of values what is how is it how does one decide the right course of action and Socrates tried here to show that reason is the basis to decide on the right course of action reason is the basis of moral life and sadly in this case even the justification for letting it go. So with this began the tradition of philosophizing values in the western tradition values were no more that which came along from tradition or that it was ordained by governments or states it began to be an issue to be discussed and resolved with the aid of reason amongst people to lay the foundation of new values. This of course the time of Socrates and Plato was time of elitism when there was a ruling class supposed to be attaining that position on the credence of their achievements both in knowledge and in the realm of war but gradually this grows into today's democracy where our sense of right and wrong the government sense of permissible and non permissible are not simply taken down for either from tradition or from religion instead it is put into the public fora for active debating and then we arrive at are the values that we have the values that the state would permit or would try to restrict. Now what are these what are the other questions that this that the Socrates dialogue lays into prominence the issues raised are primarily issues that are even concerned today this text is a classic and it is still read of course the translated version is we went through the translated version of course it is still read over millennia over its inception because it raises some crucial issues which are still or perennial to human the human predicament or the human experience. It is basically the relation of the state or the collective and the individual how much of an obligation does the individual to have towards the state is there a contract is there what kind of an arrangement between the state and the individual by state we could also mean the collective the society where does this balance in equilibrium lie why follow the laws of the state whichever state we are in whichever organization we are a part of whichever order we are a part of we tend to follow its rules why do we tend to follow its rules we tend to follow its rules because we have committed ourselves as a part of a contract a contract that is made tacitly because when we choose to join an organization state institution country nation we also vote or for its policies and we accept it. Now this of course flies in the face of the claim that many times our choices are not real choices the country we are born in the religion we are born in the job or the in the organization we have to take up because we have nothing else at hand are really not are really not the domain of choices but more of a compulsion. However now if the even if there is a compulsion do we not always have a choice either to express or dissent if there is some or to suppress it. Now Plato's claim Socrates's claim in Plato's words is to keep expressing one's views and even to the peril of one's life. So why follow the laws of the state is well there can be two reasons we follow the laws of state because the laws are just and we agree with it or the laws not following the laws could be punishing us. So what is an ideal relation between the state and the individual and if coming to the third point civil disobedience versus terrorism. Now how do you express your dissent with the state do you express it by being silent and leaving the state by not following the rules and doing something against the law how is it that your disagreement with the laws is can be civil disobedience at one end and almost terrorism at the other end. Interesting parallels can be drawn to the Indian independence movement where Indians or our ancestors were fighting for self-determination of their own country. Now there was a British rule enforced by the colonizers which to which the natives our ancestors did not agree some of them chose to break the law voluntarily and yet followed to accept the punishment that it brings along for example was Mahatma Gandhi's salt law the fact that he found the law or most of the people found the law immoral was justification enough for it to break it and then to accept the punishment that came along with it. Now this was with the mission to provoke the conscience of the ruler the other alternatives other end of the spectrum were people like Bhagat Singh who also took up violent means to express their unhappiness with the present ruling class. Now these are extreme cases of venting out one's reaction to the laws by which one is governed in one state. So Socrates here also in a way in a subtle but powerful way expresses his disapproval of the laws by confirming to it but raising the flag eternally that well this state proves that by strafling Socrates voice and later his life the state is only digging its own grave and seeing its own decline in the future. So with this I would like to leave you with the questions that Socrates dialogue raises and if in case you would like to read more about the dialogue or go into details you are welcome to visit the Gutenberg site.