Occasional Writing for T4 – Plato, Crito
Plato, Crito
Consider the question, Is it possible for a just person to obey an unjust law? Begin by comparing your own answer to Socrates’
Please limit yourself to 200-300 words and submit your comments no later than 24 hours before class begins on T4.
You can, if you wish, listen to an audio version of Plato’s Crito too.
5 Comments
Comments are closed.
Philosophy 395: Philosophy of Law 
Socrates’s predicament in Plato’s Crito, illustrates how moral issues may confront an individual when faced with unjust laws. Crito uses a very emotional appeal through when attempting to convince Socrates to escape from prison. He argues that by not escaping he leaves Crito with a bad reputation as a friend, that Socrates is aiding those who have imposed injustice upon him, and he is betraying his family ( children) by not being present in their lives. Crito’s argument was not strong enough to influence Socrates, mainly because Socrates grounded his decisions in reason and not so much emotion. He responds by telling Crito that everyone’s opinion is not important and to repay evil with evil is not right. Crito’s main argument is that since Socrates is unjust, he has the right to escape, because he doesn’t belong there. Socrates says, that even if the punishment is unjust the country has provided him with food, shelter, clothing, education, and protection (which he accepted) and as a result he is obligated to follow the law. To escape from prison would be violating the law. This perspective somewhat reflect Thomas Hobbes’s social contract theory which represents the view that persons’ moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live. Socrates also examines the negative effects that could result, such as his reputation being damaged or the possibility of his friends and family being placed in danger or exiled for aiding him; however, if he takes the punishment is eliminates the possibility of earning that reputation as an enemy of the country, his innocence is preserved, and he does not participate in any “wrong-doings”. I believe it is possible for a just person to obey unjust laws. The laws may create a strong internal conflict with the individual’s morals, and it is possible that in order to satisfy these moral desires that law(s) may have to be broken, but if the laws are broken I believe the individual is morally obligated to accept the consequences.
I think it is possible for a just person to obey an unjust law. Crito and Socrates accept the premise “that neither injury nor retaliation nor warding off evil by evil is ever right.” I disagree with the acceptance of this premise which is the reason why I have a different view on Socrates’ overall argument. I do believe that it is possible to do an evil to prevent a greater evil. One using self-defense to defend themselves or another is a basic example. I think the question becomes more complicated when you do not accept this premise because it leaves you balancing the evil of the first action against the possible prevented evil of the second. An example of this is a sniper taking down an active shooter. Murder is wrong, but in this case it could possibly save a great number of lives. That is where Socrates and I differ. The reason I believe a just person may obey an unjust law is for the same reason I disagree with the accepted premise. Many of the laws regarding the Guantanamo Bay prisoners are unjust. However, a great percentage of people in the country are willing to accept the enforcement of the unjust laws because of the evil consequences of allowing the alternative.
Socrates in his argument with Crito touches on a deep issue concerning civil disobedience. Is it right to disobey the law or should a just person follow an unjust law. This is a difficult predicament given the example from last lesson on Antigone and her heroic efforts to bury her brother. Socrates addresses Crito’s call for civil disobedience in a different way. Crito appeals to Socrates to escape prison with his help. Crito tells Socrates that his friends will be prejudiced against him for not saving Socrates from death; Crito’s reputation will be on the line. Others are counting on him and will contribute money to help him. Crito also describes how Socrates is catering to his enemies and failing to be a father for his children. These are all powerful reasons to disobey the law but Socrates demonstrates to Crito that one should not act wrongly on behalf of the values of money, reputation, and duty to one’s children unless they are supported by good reasons. Socrates illustrates that if he unjustly faces death, using unjust means, particularly bribes, to avoid this sentence would be wrong. Socrates instead tells that a man implicitly consents to the decisions of his state by residing within it, and this unjust punishment was one he must obey. I believe that it is right to disobey unjust law (America was founded on this principle to break away from Britain) however I also see the wisdom in Socrates’ statements. Socrates outlines the principle that we should not repay evil for evil. Yet this principle seems a little harsh, I see that in Socrates case the just man must obey the unjust law rather than stoop to bribery. But escaping prison and exiling himself outside the nation would remove his obligation to accept unjust laws.
Socrates believes that to compensate for being born in Athens, nurtured in Athens, and educated in Athens, he is obligated to follow the rules developed by Athens. Although Socrates did not do anything wrong except express his opinions about wisdom, it would be slighting the Athenian government by informing such a large court of their misjudgment and tainting their reputation in the eyes of the citizens. Considering a human’s natural instinct is survival, however, Socrates’ escape from eminent death may not have harmed the government’s reputation as he was just clever enough to forgo his punishment as any rational human being would. In retrospect, Socrates could have saved himself even during the trial if he had chosen his words differently. Instead, he chose to enlighten the government on his ideas and show that he was willing to die to prove his point. Socrates’ death would only improve his reputation as someone who is firm in their beliefs and only emphasizes that everyone is still concerned about their worldly reputation. Crito is concerned that his reputation would be tainted because people would assume he did not try to help a friend. He is willing to lose his reputation as a law abiding citizen to save his reputation as a friend and reliable person. The government would essentially begin to lose face with the people which could lead to anarchy. Socrates, on the other hand, is concerned that people would see him as greedy for life in that he is breaking the law and possibly hurting the government and Athens’ future in return for only a couple more short years. Socrates seems to overestimate the people’s understanding for the need to survive.
In the conversation between Socrates and Crito, Socrates tried to explain how it is a just person’s duty to do that which is just and to do anything otherwise would make them unjust. And then he continues by explaining how it seems unexplainable for a person, who has been catered to, educated, and protected by the state to decide on their own accord that which is just and is not because it favors their wants. I think this is correct and it is possible for a just person to obey and unjust law. If a just person finds the law to be harmful and/or unjust then it’s their duty to inform the public or orient a method to change it. Socrates, if we are to render him just, did the former on several occasions, and it is now why he is being charged under the court. Now, the basis which he was being held was unjust but it is just for him to follow the proper avenues and defend in the court of law. It is not his prerogative to decide his own justice and choose to escape his judgment. As a matter of fact, reading his story now has me convince that he was just because he chose to stay rather than take the more favorable route of saving himself from fear of judgment.