In the Crito, an astonishingly solid claim has been made by Socrates about the authority of the state, in terms of the principles of right and wrong behavior. However, his claim does not seem consistent not only with another underlying claim that has been made in the Crito, but also with particular claims that have been made by him in the Apology. The purpose of this short essay is to argue that it is actually possible to interpret the claims that Socrates makes about the state’s authority in a way that inconsistencies with other claims are removed.
At 5Tb, Socrates strikingly deems a state’s citizens its children and “servants” due to the education, security and other important social organizations that are provided to them. Thus, his conclusion is that the state is superior to its citizens and so its orders must be obeyed by the citizens, even it results in their death. If citizens have any disagreement with the state, they must convince the state that it is wrong, or keep obeying. To some extent, this implies Socrates’ own failure at convincing the court of the injustice of his execution and his innocence. Therefore, he argues that even though he is innocent and right, he must accept death and obey the court (the state).
On the other hand, this claim seems directly contrasts with several other claims made by Socrates, such as “one must never do wrong” (49b). Indeed, the rest of the Crito’s argument is being driven by this principle. The objection here is that if a state is superior, it can even order citizens to obey unjust laws, such as the Jim Crow laws, if the citizens cannot convince the state otherwise. After all, “an unjust law is no law at all” (King 399). In that case, Socrates' claim that a person should never do wrong requires that citizens refuse to obey an unjust law, even if they are not able to convince that state that it is wrong. Thus, the two claims seem inconsistent with each other.
However, the above two claims may appear consistent with each other if the crucial paragraphs about the state’s authority in Crito are read in a certain way. This can be possible by distinguishing between two issues, namely what law might require citizens to do, and what it might require them to endure. If this distinction is kept in mind, Socrates’ claim about the state’s moral authority can be interpreted in one of two ways: (A) Laws or orders of the state must be obeyed by citizens, regardless of what they are required to do or endure; or, (B) Laws or orders of the state must be endured by citizens, but morally, they are not obliged to do anything required by an unjust law or order.
In the Apology, Socrates apparently accepts that the state is flawless and faultless when it comes to judgments of right and wrong. Therefore, if the Crito is read more charitably, it can be interpreted that Socrates’ claim about obeying the state only applies when something that is not unjust itself must be endured, such as performing some political services. If Socrates’ claim is read in such a way, then it can be interpreted as “B” above. When he says that the final laws and orders of the state must be obeyed, he is suggesting that citizens must do and endure everything they are required to, as long as they are within the bounds of justice. Thus, Socrates’ was not obligated to stop practicing philosophy, since that was out of the bounds of justice, but he had to accept and endure his death sentence since it came through proper judicial procedures.
In conclusion, despite finding plausible consistency between Socrate’s two claims from the Crito about the state’s moral authority, it still seems that Socrates seems to have granted an overly demanding authority. It is does not seem wise to grant the state such supreme moral authority that makes its citizens morally obliged to even endure execution without resisting even when the state is genuinely being unjust, just as Socrates did, as long as the citizens are not doing anything that is morally wrong. Even though Socrates’ claims are actually more consistent as they might appear at first glance, it is still also arguable that there is also the possibility of challenging an unjust law or order, while asserting a moral right and not hindering the authority of state to carry out the punishment.
Analysis
Introduction: The introduction is concise and crisp, without any rambling, and with a plainly stated problem and thesis statement, i.e. what the essay will be arguing about.
Instead of literary flair, the essay's style has been kept clear and straightforward, while avoiding jargon.
Premise 1: Citizens must always do and endure their state’s laws and orders, even unjust ones.
Analysis: The first deductive premise states Socrates' first claim in more depth and detail, with textual references and spare use of quotes. Although the premise is deductive, determining the validity or invalidity of this premise has been left for later paragraphs.
Premise 2: People must never do wrong.
The second inductive premise attempts to describe and elucidate the problem that Socrates' is first claim is not valid with his second one, which is basis of this premise. What makes the argument regarding the inconsistency of Socrates' claims in the Crito plausible is based on his claim in the Apology, which again is the basis of this premise.
Conclusion: People must endure their state’s laws, but must never do anything wrong, even if required by their state’s laws and orders.
Analysis: The following paragraphs attempt to find a new way of interpreting the both of Socrates' claim by expending both them, until a conclusion is reached that merges a portion of the plausibility of both of the above two premises. The conclusion is that the first premise is false if interpreted on the basis of the second premise, which is true, then the conclusion reached is true.
Truth Table:
Let I be Premise 1.
Let II be Premise 2.
Let III be the Conclusion.
I II II | I | II | I
----------------------------
F F F | F F F
F F T | F F T
F T F | F T F
F T T | F T T
T F F | T F F
T F T | T F T
T T F | T T F
T T T | T T T
Sources:
Obviously, Plato’s Crito serves as the primary source for first premise, i.e. Socrates’ first claim, which this essay attempts to refute. It is fitting as the primary source since the argument that this attempts to present that one claim by Socrates’ in the Crito seems to be inconsistent with another. Plato’s Apology serves as another primary source since that is where the second premise comes from, which helps in furthering argument and proving the point that indeed the first premise is indeed inconsistent. Finally, Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham jail” merely serves as a secondary underlying source because of the quote that has been used to add strength to the argument.
Works Cited
"Plato, Crito, section 43a." Perseus Digital Library. Perseus Digital Library. Web. 13 Feb 2014. <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0170:text=Crito>.
"Plato, Apology, section 17a." Perseus Digital Library. Perseus Digital Library. Web. 13 Feb 2014. <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0170:text=Apol.>.
King, M. L. Jr.. "Letter from Birmingham jail." Trans. ArrayJ. F. Freeman (Ed.) Lynchburg College Symposium Readings. . 3rd ed. Philadelphia: XLibris, 1963. 392-415. Print.
