Challenging Socrates' Argument for Government Obedience in Crito

Introduction: Socrates' Case for Obedience

If Socrates had lived, he would have done great good. He could have continued to educate; he could have continued to spread his wisdom to adults and children alike. Would Socrates' escaping death have been for the greater good? Not in his mind. Instead, Socrates argues that the good is good in whatever circumstance, and that good must always be done. Further, he suggests that citizens are the creations, and even slaves, of government. Defying government, he argues, would destroy it, and because Socrates argues that humans are not equal with government, it has a right to destroy him, while he does not have a right to destroy it.

Government is the overarching structure through which populations are managed. That is, a government must provide a framework for its citizens, organizing their lives to sustain both the lives of its citizens and its own existence. The reasoning behind government is that, without it, chaos would ensue. Governments apply some common ground to the lives of diverse peoples. Political, economic, social, and foreign policy variables are present in some but not all forms of government.

Based on Socrates' argument and this definition of government, I disagree with his reasoning for three main reasons: Socrates assumes that governments play a social role in the lives of their citizens, that citizens agree with government's role, and that government is a higher authority than its citizens.

Government's Social Role Is Not Universal

First, Socrates' argument that governments play a social role in citizens' lives is not true for all governments. Socrates suggests that government, law, or the state is the institution through which parents are married and children are born. Furthermore, Socrates states that it is the government or law that is responsible for citizens' education. Thus, Socrates defines a social government — one that is not simply tasked with the responsibilities of legal affairs, foreign policy, and the maintenance of common areas, but one that creates and maintains its social base.

However, Socrates does not address types of government that do not concern themselves with the social welfare of their people. In such a government, citizens should feel no obligation to obey in any circumstance. Moreover, not everyone chooses to take advantage of the social services that government offers. For example, some people choose to have a religious marriage rather than a legal one. Some choose not to enter a legal union at all. While some people are educated through the state, others are homeschooled or attend private schools. Thus, I do not agree with Socrates' argument that citizens should always obey their governments, because some governments do not provide for their citizens, while other citizens choose alternative institutions to meet their social needs.

As scholars of Plato's political philosophy have noted, the argument in the Crito reflects the particular character of Athenian democratic governance and may not generalize to all political arrangements.

Conclusion

Socrates argues that a person should obey his or her government in any circumstance, and that this is the right and moral thing to do. If government is defined as a structure through which populations are managed, however, I disagree with his argument. Some governments may not feel the need to manage their citizens' social needs; many people have legitimate complaints about their governments; and governments are not, in fact, a higher authority than the citizens who compose them. For these three reasons, Socrates' case for unconditional civic obedience, as presented in the Crito, does not hold.