Socrates and the Obligation to Obey the Law

Plato's Crito And The Law

Among the celebrated treatises on reason and logic known as the dialogues of Plato, it is the relatively short discourse between and the condemned philosopher Socrates his concerned companion Crito which today stands as the most lasting monument to the ancient Greek tradition of pedagogically examining the realm of ethics. The Crito is an artfully constructed depiction of an intensely logical dialectic between the sober and systematic Socrates, who has refuses to defy his impending death sentence as an extension of his conception of justice and injustice, and a wealthy patron willing to finance an attempt at escape. After allowing his friend Crito to present a series of arguments, which include the provision of financing for the flight to freedom and several provocative moral appeals, Socrates responds by reaffirming his commitment to remaining guided by reason. Socrates' subsequent defense of his own imminent execution is based on a fundamental belief in the objectively opposing forces known as justice and injustice, a conviction exemplified by his assertion to Crito that "one must neither do injustice in return nor wrong any man, no matter what one has suffered at his hands" (68). Socrates considered the ancestral oath of the Ephebes, which bound young Athenian men to "pay thoughtful heed to whoever may be in authority over me, and to the established laws and to whatever laws may be established in the future" (Komorowska, 2011), to be a consecration of his own honor, and by refusing to allow his present condition of captivity and condemnation to alter his existing moral precepts regarding a citizen's obligation to the law, he proved to be a man of immense personal principle.

Plato presents Socrates discussion with Crito as a calm and reasoned exchange, and this rhetorical device is designed to deemphasize the looming threat of forcible poisoning so that the reader may draw clear conclusions on the basis of the factual evidence presented. Socrates' series of assertions made to rebut Crito's claims, which scholars have since classified as the First, Second, and Third Premises, systematically establish a logical chain of moral truths which inevitable lead him to conclude that he cannot abide violation of the Laws, even in the name of annulling their erroneous application. Socrates' First Premise holds that Crito is mistaken when he advocates "that we should give thought to the opinion of the majority about what's just, fine, good, and their opposites" (67), because the collective opinions of the irrational, irresponsible, and unenlightened are superseded by understandings borne of logical reasoning. The basis of Socrates' Second Premise is that one ought never to do wrong, even when this action comes in response to a previously committed wrong. By confirming that the avenging act of escaping from prison would constitute a wrong equal to the crimes of which he was wrongly convicted, Socrates displays his ultimate adherence to his notion of the Laws. The Third Premise of Plato's Crito comes in the form of dialectic exchange between Socrates and the imagined personification of the Laws, and when the latter admonishes Socrates to "be persuaded by those who reared you. Don't put a higher value on children, on life, or on anything else than on what's just" (71), the true depth of the man's moral integrity is laid bare. For Socrates, preserving the fidelity of the laws which form the foundation of civilized society proved to be far more important than protecting his own life. As he demonstrated throughout the Crito, man's comprehension of morality can be fraught with subjectivity and subjugation, but in the case of Socrates and other enlightened men of his age, "for us, however, the argument has made the decision" (67).