Summary Of Plato's Crito

There are multiple ways to interpret Plato’s Crito. Depending on the interpretation, there may arise an inconsistency. If it’s read as though Socrates and the Laws are two separate entities, there is no inconsistency. Once again the apparent inconsistency is either Socrates will disobey the court if they order him to stop practicing philosophy (29d) or Socrates believes that everyone (including Socrates) must follow the law/obey the court (50a-52e). Socrates cannot possibly believe both so there is either an inconsistency or the contradiction is just verbal. If Crito is read as though they are two separate entities, then all of the arguments stem from the Laws and not Socrates himself. In this case, Socrates simply used the Laws as a tool to

When the Laws are introduced in Crito they claim that none of the Laws should be disobeyed because to break one is to break them all. Instead of breaking the Laws in retaliation because they have acted or behaved unjustly, as stated at 51b, they can be persuaded to change, “although he agreed to obey us, he neither obeys nor persuades us if we do something ignobly, although we put forward an alternative to him and do not order him crudely to do whatever we bid, but permit either of two things—either to persuade us or to do it” (52a). Persuasion is the one option that allows for disobedience; however, whether or not Socrates must obey the law if he fails to persuade it is unclear. Socrates’ hypothetical disobedience in Apology to the court’s order to cease philosophizing is taken into account in Richard Kraut’s “Plato’s Apology and Crito: Two Recent Studies”. The article is a review of Gerasimo Santas’ Socrates and A.D. Woozley’s Law and Obedience: The Arguments of Plato’s Crito. In the article Kraut comments that Santas’ stance, which is that Socrates’ disobedience in the Apology does no harm to the city because he is willing to accept his punishment, is unreasonable: “but it is absurd to say that, whenever someone openly violates a law and accepts one’s punishment, no harm is done to the city” . Kraut does not go on to fully explain why no harm is done to the city, but I am compelled to disagree with him on Santas’ behalf. If harm were done to the city each time someone disobeys a court order or breaks a law, the state of Athens would have fallen apart long before Socrates’ trial because apparently punishing those responsible does nothing to repair the Laws. If this is the case, then what purpose does justice, in this case a court of law, serve if not to repair the damage done by criminals. If Socrates could not persuade the Laws of Athens not