Analysis of Crito
The question is raised within the dialogue between Socrates and Crito
concerning civil disobedience. Crito has the desire, the means, and many
compelling reasons with which he tries to convince the condemned to acquiesce in
the plan to avoid his imminent death. Though Crito's temptation is imposing, it
is in accord with reason and fidelity that Socrates chooses to fulfill his
obligation to the state, even to death.
Before addressing Crito's claims which exhort Socrates to leave the
state and avoid immanent death, the condemned lays a solid foundation upon which
he asserts his obligation to abide by the laws. The foundation is composed of
public opinion, doing wrong, and fulfillment of one's obligations. Addressing
public opinion, Socrates boldly asserts that it is more important to follow the
advice of the wise and live well than to abide by the indiscriminate and
capricious public opinion and live poorly. Even when it is the public who may
put one to death, their favor need not be sought, for it is better to live well
than to submit to their opinion and live poorly. Next, wrongful doing is
dispatched of. They both consent to the idea that, under no circumstances, may
one do a wrong, even in retaliation, nor may one do an injury; doing the latter
is the same as wrong doing. The last foundation to be questioned is the
fulfillment of one's obligations. Both of the philosophers affirm that,
provided that the conditions one consents to are legitimate, one is compelled to
fulfill those covenants. These each are founded upon right reasoning and do
provide a justifiable foundation to ...