Essay, Research Paper: Analysis Of Crito

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 discredit any design of dissent.
At line fifty, Socrates executes these foundations to destroy and make untenable the petition that he may rightfully dissent:
Then consider the logical consequence. If we leave this place without first persuading the state to let us go, are we or are we
not doing an injury, and doing it in a quarter where it is least justifiable? Are we or are we not abiding by our just
agreements?
To criticize or reproach Socrates' decision to accept his punishment is unjustifiable in most of the arguments. The only point of
disagreement with Socrates' logic concerns his assertion, "expressed" in his dialogue with the laws, that the state is to be more respected
than one's parents. I contend that one would never willingly oblige himself to a totalitarian state in which the laws and the magistrates
are to be regarded more highly than one's own family. One would only contract with a government whose power insures the public good
and whose establishment seeks the to extend to its citizens utilitarian needs.