Socrates Vs Crito

Upon reading Plato, The Trial and Death of Socrates, Socrates strongly held views on the relationship between morality and laws become apparent to the reader. Equally, Socrates makes clear why laws should be followed and why disobedience to the law is rarely justified.

Do we have an obligation to obey any law, no matter how unjust or evil, provided only that it is in fact a valid rule of the legal system in which we happen to be physically located? In the following composition, I am going to examine the answer to this question in accordance to what Socrates believes. The best way to understand this almost “WWSD” (What Would Socrates Do) approach is by looking at Socrates' actions in the three Platonic dialogues we have read. These dialogues bring forth three possible bases for why Socrates believes one should obey the law. First, that there is a distinction between the the “justness” of a law and how that law is applied. Second, that if one willingly accepts living in a

In life, people are guided by moral beliefs and principles. Whether their beliefs are good or bad, their decisions are based on them. In Plato “The Crito”, Socrates emphasizes his moral beliefs and principles when he decides not to escape from prison. Although Socrates had the opportunity to escape his death sentence, he chose not to do so because he had a moral obligation to commit a sacrifice.

Crito argues that Socrates should escape jail, and relies on the premises that he must consider the opinion of the public and that Socrates is betraying his children. Crito believes that Socrates is being foolish by remaining in jail and not escaping when given the opportunity. To support this argument, Crito presents two premises. The first of which claims that Socrates

More importantly, Socrates’s relationship to the state is made clear during the dialogue with his friend Crito, when speaking as if Socrates is the state himself. When asking how important the state is, the law asks; “Is your…country to be honored more than…all your ancestors…that it counts for more among the gods and sensible men, that you must worship it…?” Rather than a statement, Socrates makes his point that the law must be upheld, even in his case of a death sentence. It is important to note that Socrates accepted his fate, even though he felt the accusations against him were false. Yet, as if speaking on behalf of the law, recognized that escaping would only turn those untruthful indictments into the truth, and as a destroyer of laws; “You will strengthen the conviction of the jury that they passed the right sentence on you.” By the definition of the word martyr, as one who dies for a cause, in this instance the laws of the state,

In the Crito, Socrates believes that breaking the laws of the city harms all of society. The consequences of escaping the city outweigh the benefits for it puts his family, his friends, and himself in danger. He believes in a personal morality that one must live a good and just life, and not just any life. If Socrates breaks the law then he would not be acting justly,

In his hypothetical argument with the law, the law states that his idea that because the courts wronged him, he should not now wrong them because the two parties are not equal. The Athenian government believes that is is bad to wrong your country because they have given him everything: his life, education and nurturing as they did with his ancestors. This argument tells Socrates, how the gods want him to care about his country more than his own family and though he does not fear death he does think of judgement from the gods.

To Socrates laws only have meaning because the people give them meaning and only by following the laws do we see the actual value of them. According to Socrates the relationship of the people and the states are like that of a child and their parents. He claims that state raises the people by guiding them with laws giving them order and educates the people of what’s right and what’s wrong. Socrates does not believe in disobeying the law to set examples as you would not disobey your parents just to prove a point. Socrates is appreciative for what state has done for him and feels as if it is his duty and obligation to repay them or show gratitude to the state by following its laws.

By living in Athen for 70 years Socrates has agreed to have faith in the cities virtues and in the force of decisions that are imposed upon him and as a citizen he respects them. Any person that disobeys these laws deliberately attempts to destroy these laws and the society that has created them: "However, that whoever of you remains when he sees how we conduct our trials and manage the city in other ways, has in fact come to an agreement with us to obey our instructions." (51e). If the decisions of the city are not respected as honourable, the structure of that civilization will fall to pieces. If a person is found violating the standards of his or her society and does not accept the consequences of his or her actions there can't be a system of law that construct order. "You must either persuade it or obey its orders, and endure in silence whatever it instructs you to endure, whether blows or bonds, and if it leads you into war or be wounded or killed you must obey."(51b)

To this question, first Socrates says that he should not revenge injustice. Because doing injustice is bad in any circumstances (Crito 49b), to return injustice just because of having injustice done onto himself would bad also (Crito 49c). Therefore Socrates should not commit injustice just to get even with Athens. Injustice is bad because it harms, and disobedience to the law would harm the city (Crito 50b); so it seems that to disobey the law would be an injustice. But why should Socrates obey the law of the city? Socrates reasons that since the city has done him great benefactions, such as giving birth to his life, taking care of his physical upbringing and his education, and granting him long years of benefits from the legal system (Crito 50e - 51c), Socrates owns the state a strong duty of gratitude just as a child would own to his father. One of those duties is to obey the state (like how a child obeys his parents), which always has included the possibility of death such as in times of war (Crito 51b). Socrates should obey the city because he has made an agreement to do so. This agreement is the social contract that he has implicitly accepted and lived under for 70 years. This contract is legitimate because Socrates had a thorough understanding of the legal system (Crito 51e - 52a), he did not leave the city when he was given the fair chance all his life (Crito 51 c-e), and that he

He also explains to Crito that the citizen is bound to the laws like a child is bound to a parent, and so to go against the laws would be like striking a parent. Rather than simply break the laws and escape, Socrates should try to persuade the laws to let him go. These laws present the citizen's duty to them in the form of a kind of social contract. By choosing to live in Athens, a citizen is endorsing the laws, and is willing to follower by them. Therefore, if he was to break from prison now, having so consistently validated the social contract, he would be making himself an outlaw who would not be welcome in any other civilized state for the rest of his life. Furthermore when he dies, he will be harshly judged in the underworld for behaving unjustly toward his city's laws. In this way, Socrates chooses not to attempt escape but he dies as a martyr, not for himself, but for his city and its system of justice.

Plato’s account of Socrates’ defense against charges of corrupting the youth and heresy, reveal the ancient teacher’s view of justice as fairness and support of rule of law. In the Apology, Socrates faces a moral dilemma: to either accept his punishment for crimes he did not commit or to accept the assistance of his friends and escape death by the hand of the state. His choice to accept death in order to maintain rule of law reveals his belief of justice. He beliefs his punishment to be just not because he committed the crimes but because his sentence came through a legal process to which he consented. By sparing his life, he would weaken the justice system of Athens which he values above his own existence. This difference between the two men’s beliefs regarding justice draws the sharpest contrast in their views of effective leadership and government.

Socrates would rather be punished or die before he breaks the laws that were set forth by his state, and this he says later in the same passage, “I should run any risk on the side of law and justice rather than join you. (Cahn pg. 38 Apology b10-c2).”

Socrates’ intention was to influence the men of Athens to follow the one who teaches wisely than someone who earns knowledge from an unreliable source. He believed that his source were reliable and it was suitable for the society, Similar to Socrates, Martin Luther King advances his community by letting his people to seek more knowledge about just and unjust laws. In his letter from Birmingham jail, King says “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others? The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust” (Letter from Birmingham Jail, 611). Socrates was on trial because he broke some laws that he does not believe in and yet was willing to die by those same laws. Martin Luther King argues that if someone thinks there is something wrong with the law, you have to stand up and do something to change the wrong in the law.

The main method Socrates implements in seeking to be virtuous by following the law is elenchus: Socrates’ dialogic method of asking questions of an interlocutor until the interlocutor becomes aware of contradictions in his thinking. This method is used most notably while cross-examining Meletus, who is charging him with corrupting the youth of Athens and being a staunch atheist. Before this elenchus even begins, says that the trial should “proceed in whatever way is dear to the god, but the law must be obeyed and a defense speech must be made”(Apo. 19a). Through this passage alone, it is apparent that Socrates already holds high regard for the law itself and its procedures. He begins this process when he says, “Now he asserts that I do injustice by corrupting the young. But, I, men of Athens, assert that Meletus does injustice, in that he jests in a serious matter, easily bringing human beings to trial, pretending to be serious and concerned about things for which he never cared at all” (Apo. 24c). Socrates’ whole purpose is to benefit Athenian society through the pursuit of truth and justice, and the fact that he is being accused of an injustice vexes him to such a degree that he tears down Meletus in his cross-examination. Socrates questions Meletus, revealing that “the laws” produce better young men and “all the Athenians, as it appears, make them noble and good” except for Socrates himself. After this is established, Socrates states that the court has charged him with a