Overview

Socrates has been condemned to death for reasons that he believes are unjust and he has to decide whether to escape or accept the sentence. He takes a philosophical approach to making his decision: he considers arguments. That is probably not what I would do, but he was more committed to philosophy than I am.

To be more precise, he says there are three reasons for obeying the law, even in this extreme sort of case: “the one who disobeys does wrong in three ways” (51e). So we are going to pay special attention to 49d-53a, where the three reasons why it would be wrong to disobey seem to be laid out.

Assumptions

Plato and Crito agree on two points before they get to the three arguments.

First, it is always wrong to do harm and therefore it is wrong to harm others even in retaliation for having been harmed.

Second, disobedience harms the state.

Strictly speaking, Crito agrees about the first point, about how retaliation is always wrong, but then turns around and says the opposite when the conversation returns to Socrates’s sentence. So it is not clear how deep his agreement is.

In any event, it seems to me that neither point is obviously correct. At the same time, in my opinion, Socrates’s remarks about how obedience is necessary for the state strike me as getting at something important about political authority. Namely, it means accepting the state’s judgments about, say, the law.

Two of the three arguments

I am going to treat the argument about parents as basically the same as the argument about upbringers. Here is how I understand them.

1. It is never right for anyone to harm a parent or teacher even in retaliation for having been harmed.
2. The city is similar to a parent or a teacher, for Socrates, since it helped bring him up.
3. If Socrates disobeys the law, that would be retaliation against the city. It would involve harming in return for being harmed (by the unjust sentence).
4. Therefore, it would be wrong for Socrates to disobey the law.

In addition, Socrates proposes what will be called a social contract argument. In a nutshell, you are obliged to obey the state because you agreed to do so. Here is how I see that one going.

1. It is always wrong to break one’s agreements (49e)
2. Socrates made an agreement with the city: he knew about its laws and chose to live there despite being free to leave (51d).
3. Therefore, it is wrong for Socrates to disobey the law.

We will want to raise questions about both of these arguments.