In "The Trial and Death of Socrates", when Crito is trying to get Socrates to escape from prision Socrates makes two arguments on why he shouldn't escape. The first argument is the state as parent analogy and the second argument is the implicit agreement. While I agree with both of his arguments the second, in my opinion, is much stronger.
             The first argument is the state as parent analogy. Crito is trying to convince Socrates to escape and Socrates says that first we should see if it would be right to escape. He starts off by asking is wrong doing harmful and shameful to the wrongdoer in everyway? Crito agrees with him and Socrates adds, "So one must never do wrong." Again Crito agrees and Socrates adds, "Nor must one, when wronged, inflict wrong in return, as the majority believe, since one must never do wrong." Crito still agree with all that Socrates is asking but asks him what his point is to all this. Socrates explains that if the law and the state came and confronted them about what they were about to do they might say: " Do you not by this action you are attempting intend to destroy us, the laws , and indeed the whole city, as far as you are concerned?" In this case showing that Socrates would be causing harm. He goes on to say that the law might also ask was it not them that brought him to birth!
             and educated him and protected him? In this way he shows Crito how the state was a type of parent and notes that it is unvirtueous to do wrong or harm your parent. Crito again agrees with all that Socrates says. In short Socrates argues that the state is like his parent and in this case his parent has sentenced him to prison until his execution. He says it would be wrong to disobey his parents or to harm them by going against their rulings. Which means it would be wrong to escape.
             I think that Socrates makes a good point. The state was a parent who nurtured and protected him and I agree that you must
             ...