Socrates Disobeyed The Unjust Analysis

OCT 4, 2010 • 1. In the Apology, Socrates recounts how he disobeyed the unjust order of the Thirty Tyrants to arrest a fellow citizen; he also claims that he will never stop philosophizing, regardless of what the legally constituted political authority commands. Yet, in the Crito, Socrates provides numerous arguments for obeying the decision of the legally constituted political authority, even though the decision (to put Socrates to death) was unjust. Critically assess whether Socrates’s view about political obligation in the two texts is consistent.

In both Crito & Apology Plato presents Socrates’ argues clearly and succinctly. The claims and arguments constructed in the Crito ultimately lead to the conclusion that ‘a failure to persuade ones government, one must diligently obey the orders of
This higher law can be the divine laws of reason. Socrates may be consistent in his approach to just and unjust law. A paradox may exist between the Athenian Law and the laws of reason. What Socrates could have been suggesting is that it would have been impossible for him not to philosophize and use his reason. In this way, to not be politically disobedient, he would have to change the very nature of his being. In essence, Socrates was not ‘disobeying’; rather he was incapable of ‘obeying’. An example would be if the Athenian State asked him to pass through the eye of a threading needle. In this instance, the task is impossible and by default Socrates would defy the state – not be cause won’t but because he can’t. It is important to note that in all instances leading up to the trial, that Socrates faced justice vs. unjust choices. The final ultimatum was an impossible instruction: actively terminate your ability to dialogue and reason. To obey the state, Socrates drank the hemlock. This was the only way to consistently obey the state and be