In the Apology and Crito, Socrates makes several seemingly contradictory statements about the fundamentals in which he believes. It may be said that these conflicting views expressed set up a ‘good man versus good citizen’ debate. For the purpose of this essay, I will argue that Socrates position on laws of the state in the Apology is consistent with his position in the Crito because Socrates makes a clear distinction between just laws, and those that are unjust. Further, the issue may be looked at as Socrates stating that just laws are those that one has moral obligation to uphold, and unjust laws being those that it would be immoral to abide by. A qualification may be required, however, before continuing. While it may be pertinent to further look at the views Socrates expressed in Crito regarding the validity of opinions, and of evil and good, for this essay I will limit myself to the above stated complexity of the validity of governance in a society. As with all essays of a philosophical nature, I am looking at but one small aspect that makes up the larger problem regarding this issue.

   To begin, a brief summarization of the most important aspects of the Apology and Crito follows.

   In the Apology, Socrates begins his defense by firmly establishing that he believes the charges brought upon him by the court he stands in front of are false. The charges stem from the belief that he is a “doer of evil, who corrupts the youth; and who does not believe in the gods of the state, but has other new divinities of his own” . Despite his defense Socrates is found guilty by the court, yet has a final chance to convince the jury that his ‘crimes’ are not worthy of the death penalty. Instead he suggests that he be given an honor he believes he is more worthy of than the Olympic heroes it is reserved for, “a reward…deserv[ed] far more than the citizen who has won the prize at Olympia in the horse of chariot race. ” The statement this essay questions however, comes when Socrates asserts that if he were to “be let off, but upon one condition, that you are not to enquire and speculate in this way anymore, and that if you are caught doing so again you shall die” he would not accept that option. This statement in the Apology seemingly directly contradicts Socrates main statement in the Crito, which is that if he were to escape prison and leave Athens, he would be breaking Athenian law, which is he is unwilling to do . This seeming disparity between Socrates views of laws requires a further analysis.

   The validity of law is what Socrates is questioning in this case, and while his views may seem like they are contradictory, they actually follow the same principle. To Socrates, law has the potential to be both just and unjust. In Crito, when faced with the possibility to flee Athens and continue with his teaching elsewhere, Socrates refuses . This is because he finds the law itself to be just; he has never before fought against the laws that govern Athenian society when they affect others, and as such he must allow himself to be judged under these same laws . Convicted for spreading his ideas amongst the youth of Athens, it would label Socrates a hypocrite if he were to go against his desire to live a just and honorable life only to live a few more years in exile. He would then not only be defrauding his own ideas, but also violating what he believes to be a just agreement. By living within the city boundaries, Socrates consented to the terms of city and must abide by the laws as by doing otherwise would compromise his morals. To further this point, farther in Crito he says “but the State has injured us and given an unjust sentence” . Socrates does not say that the law itself is unjust, only that the sentence is unjust. In saying this, Socrates affirms that he agrees with the just cause of the law, and charges brought against him. His morals may not agree with the sentence, but do with the law in its simplest form. In the case of the fictitious law Socrates said he would not abide by, he is not going against his beliefs, but instead affirming them in the face of the court. In his opinion, this law would be unjust, and he has a moral obligation to say that he would not abide by it. If he were to do such, Socrates would compromise his morals, and his pursuit of a just and honorable life. In neither case does Socrates contradict himself; it is simply two very different laws in which the situation is dealing with. With his reactions to both laws, Socrates is upholding the same principles and establishing his belief that there are both just and unjust laws.

   A moment must be taken to contemplate any objections to this position, though.

   For those who believe Socrates to be inconsistent in his opinions, their argument lies mainly in Socrates statement in the Apology: “we must not regard what the many say of us: but what he, the one man who has understanding of just and unjust, will say, and what the truth will say. And therefore you begin in error when you suggest that we should regard the opinion of the many about just and unjust, good and evil, honourable and dishonourable. ” Here it is made known that Socrates only believes in the opinion of the credible- those who have an understanding of just and unjust. The issue taken is that Socrates cannot rationally justify one law to be unjust when made by the same body as a law he has accepted as just, thus giving the court legitimacy in opinion. What is not taken into account here, though, is Socrates further establishment of the personal morality involved in determining whether to accept the decision of the court. Overall, I think that Socrates successfully overcomes this objection and others in the course of the Apology and Crito to prove that his positions taken agree both with each other, and his belief in a just and honourable life.

   In Crito, Socrates makes seemingly contradictory statements to those in the Apology. These statements create a ‘good man versus good citizen’ dilemma, where many believe that Socrates varying position cannot allow him to both fulfill his duty to his city, while keeping with his beliefs. However, I think this to be false. Socrates positions in the Apology and Crito are not inconsistent, just of a different nature than the other. In Crito, Socrates establishes that there is a difference between just and unjust laws . He goes to great lengths to prove that just laws are that because they do not require compromise of morals, and unjust laws are labeled such because they go against the morals of an individual. For Socrates, the laws under which he is originally charged are in his view just, because he has agreed to the just agreement with the city of Athens. A law that would prevent Socrates from furthering his beliefs would be unjust, and morally he would have an obligation to not uphold that law. An argument may be made that since both laws would be established by the same court, then Socrates could not claim one to be just while another unjust, but this is refuted when the principle of morals in law that Socrates stresses is established. This is of course only one aspect of a larger issue. Yet I think Socrates successfully exhibits that morals play a huge role in determining whether laws are just or unjust, and as such proves that his position in Crito is consistent with his position in the Apology.


Works Cited

Plato, “Apology.”
http://classics.mit.edu//Plato/apology.html

Plato, “Crito.” 360 B.C.E.
http://classics.mit.edu//Plato/crito.html