Socrates tells Crito that he is one of those people who must be guided by reason, while Crito has insisted that he be obeyed in this matter regardless of whether he has convinced Socrates. Socrates claims that he was serious at his trial about not fearing death. He expresses contempt for the opinions of the masses of mankind who think irrationally and act randomly. Socrates says that the only person whose opinion is of value is the one who understands justice.  Money, reputation and feeding children are values of thoughtless men.  The question is whether it would be unjust for Socrates to escape, not what people would think about him.
My argument is not made to discredit the presence of a religious figure, or to offend those who believe that morality stems from God. It may very well be that this is the case, and that God is truly an omnipotent being who decides what is, and is not, moral, in his all-encompassing wisdom. I only attempt to explain my belief that the second branch of this dilemma is the one I find to be more convincing, and to present evidence explaining my interpretation. I would like to argue, as a closing remark, that humanity's morality should be based on rational dialogue and a reasonable understanding of the consequences of one's actions. It can be boiled down to the concept of act utilitarianism, or the idea that morally justifiable actions are ones where net happiness gained outweighs net happiness lost, though concrete standards for measuring such changes in happiness are not at all possible.