Sultan !

1
Aly Sultan
Professor Jason Blum
Philosophical Thinking
16 November 2015
Crito
In the Crito, Socrates is sitting in his cell awaiting his execution when he is visited by Crito
(Plato 45). The pair begin arguing whether or not Socrates should escape from his cell and flee
Athens or remain and accept his fate. Crito puts forth several arguments and Socrates responds to
each of them, however, the most critical ones to the question When, if ever, is it acceptable to
break the law? are explained below. Socrates puts several guidelines with which he operates in
his argument. These guidelines may seem to leave no room for disobedience against the law,
however, there may be a scenario in which they allow for disobedience. A situation in which
potentially Socrates might agree that disobeying the laws is acceptable. The guidelines themselves
will be critiqued in addition to the final argument with which Socrates may potentially agree.

Initially Crito argues that the people would look at him and Socrates other close friends as
cheap cowards who valued their money more than their friend (Plato 47). Socrates responds by
stating that the opinions of the masses are irrelevant (Plato 47). Continuing with this line of
reasoning, Socrates argues that only the opinions of experts should be taken into consideration
(Plato 49). Experts of a certain field will always benefit a person in that field more so than nonexperts or the masses. A physical trainers opinion is much more beneficial to the body than the
opinion of the masses (Plato 50). Socrates then attempts to make a connection between material
things like the body that are affected by opinions and other immaterial things. He begins referring to
an unexplained entity he describes as part of us which is improved by being just (Plato 50). He
thinks that this part of us should have greater value than the body, so adhering to justice is

Sultan !2
necessary to prevent harm to that part. Socrates acknowledges the masses can still kill him so the
damage to the body is most definitely catastrophic, but he responds with a counter argument, The
most important thing is not life but the good life. (Plato 51). Meaning that a life not lived well is
not a life worth living at all. He then equates the good life to the just life (Plato 51).
Socrates then moves on to consider another argument, One must never do harm to others
even if done harm to him (Plato 52). In order for him to live a just life he must consider this
argument as true. If it were false Socrates would be committing unjust behaviour when responding
to an enemy and so he is damaging his part. He uses this argument as a premise from which he
builds his new argument, that one must adhere to the law regardless of what it has done to him.
Socrates looks at his relationship with the laws of the city and notices that he as signed an
agreement with the city to adhere to its laws. This agreement is dependent on both parties receiving
something. For Socrates the law must provide him with good education, order, and the ability to
amend and improve said laws, and they in turn must receive Socratess obedience (Plato 53). By
ignoring this agreement and disobeying the laws Socrates would be causing harm to the laws by
undermine their authority. Thus, Socrates would be committing unjust behaviour which he
considers detrimental to his part, and is he would be preventing himself from living a just life.
This argument stands even if the city had already wronged him in sentencing him to death, because
as the initial premise states One must never do harm to others even if the others had done harm to
him. Socrates acknowledges that he cannot partially adhere to the laws because he would still be
undermining its authority and thus causing harm to him and them.
In his rationalisation of this latest argument Socrates begins personifying the law and thus
treating them as a separate entity similar to a human (Plato 53). An entity which wrongful behaviour
can be committed against. Socrates looks at the laws and realises they are akin to his parents and as
with his parents he cannot retaliate if they wrong him (Plato 54). If he is beaten by his father he
must not fight back because he is not on equal footing with him. The same applies for the laws

Sultan !3
which are greater in authority than his father and have provided for him as his father did if not
more. Socrates acknowledges another point, if he does not wish to adhere to the laws he can leave at
any time, which he has not done (Plato 54). If Socrates does not wish to leave he can review the
laws and attempt to change them since he is of legal age and he can vote, which he has not done
(Plato 54). Therefore it would make little sense for him to leave now once the law has refused it.

So When is it ever acceptable to break the law?

Socrates plays around with three main ideas. The laws are a separate entity that can be
wronged. The argument one cannot wrong someone who has wronged him is assumed true. And
the law and Socrates have an agreement between them that they both must honor, he by adhering to
the laws, and they by providing for him throughout his life, which they have.
The agreement between the law and Socrates is based on the idea that Socrates has benefited
from the city, but Socrates is a special case. If we assume a hypothetical man who has not benefited
from the city as much as Socrates, for example, a beggar man who only gains occasional help from
some kind citizens and has the ability to sleep on the streets. That man doesnt have the same
contract as Socrates. The agreement of adhering to the laws is based on the idea that both parties
receive something. The beggar has received very little when compared to Socrates. In addition the
beggar does not have the same abilities like Socrates because he cannot leave the city since he has
no money, and he cannot vote on the laws properly because he cannot formulate an informed
opinion due to his lack of education. Yet the beggar must adhere to the laws the same way Socrates
does.
This scenario creates an injustice in both situations if he chooses to adhere to the laws or
not. Given the nature of the situation a choice has to be made either way, so an injustice must occur.
As Socrates says one cannot partially adhere to the laws because he would still be wronging them,
and in cases like execution its really only a binary choice, death or survival there is no in-between.

Sultan !4
Not adhering to the laws at all would be an injustice against the laws because, like Socrates, the
beggar would be undermining the laws authority. If the beggar adheres to the laws he would be
committing an injustice against himself because he would be equating himself to Socrates who has
greater abilities than him and has gained much more from the city than him. Since an injustice must
occur we can ask which is the lesser injustice, not adhering or adhering? When comparing between
the importance of living a just life and caring for ones body Socrates considered the unexplained
part of us that is damaged by not being just more important than the body. So the damage done to
it by being unjust is graver than the damage done to the body by not exercising and eating healthily.
Therefore, we can compare injustices by seeing what exactly they damage, and to what degree.
Adherence causes great damage to the beggar because it is already negatively affecting someone
who is already in a very weak position. Not adhering to the laws causes little damage to the laws
authority, because a beggars status is too low to undermine it when compared to someone like
Socrates. No man would consider the law weak if he sees a beggar refusing to adhere to them.
The law maybe more important than the beggar, but the damage done to the beggar is much greater
than the damage done to the laws. So in terms of each individual beggar, not adhering seems like
the lesser injustice.
However, if we consider the defiance of the beggar as the lesser injustice, a problem arises.
The more beggars refuse to adhere, the greater the chaos in the city, since individually each of them
not adhering is technically the lesser injustice. So it would seem like mass disobedience from the
beggars is the greater injustice. However, a chaotic city in which the laws fail to control the
population allows non-adherence for people like Socrates. Because part of the agreement between
them and the laws is that the laws must maintains order. If the laws do not maintain order they are
effectively not adhering to the contract between them and the Socrates like people. The laws cease
to adhere to the contract between them and any member of the population. Hence the laws are
committing an injustice against everyone. So again, we have two injustices, lets call the injustice

Sultan !5
committed against all of the people by the law Injustice (A), and the injustice committed by all
the beggars against the law Injustice (B). Which is the greater injustice? For simplicity we can
assume the population is divided into 50% Socrates like people, and 50% beggars, so that the
quantity of people on either end does not affect which injustice is the greater one. By damage alone
Injustice (A) seems like the greater injustice. The Socrates like people have been given certain
privileges, food, education, shelter, etc these privileges are unsustainable in a chaotic city. In
addition, order is lost for all members of the population, including them. So the Socrates like
people, who have not rebelled are now receiving nothing at all while unlike the beggars are still
forced to adhere to the laws. In Injustice (B) the beggars have refused to adhere to the agreement
of between them and the law. But again, this was because they were being provided with nothing at
all to begin with. In addition,injustice B could have been prevented had the laws given the same
privileges to the beggars as the Socrates like people. Therefore, as previously stated, Injustice A
seems like the greater injustice when factoring in the the events that had transpired prior to injustice
B being committed.
The law cannot expect to be adhered to by the Socrates like people after putting itself in a
position of weakness due to its own unfairness when treating the citizens of its population. Had the
law been fair non of this would have happened. So in this scenario, it is acceptable to refuse to
adhere to the laws by any member of the population (Socrates like, or beggar). When the law is
unfair, it allows for chaos to develop which nullifies it and allows for widespread disobedience.
My opinion of Socratess potential reasoning.
By using Socratess guidelines I have estimated how he would respond to the given question
of When, if ever, is it acceptable to break the law?. Given his potential final position on the
matter, I would have to say I agree with Socrates, that when the law is not just enough it nullifies
itself and this allow us to refuse to adhere to it. However, this argument was reached by following
Socratess guidelines which in my opinion seem problematic. The guidelines demand complete

Sultan !6
adherence to the law, but in the scenario previously stated in which the law is unjust, it allows for
disobedience. Since the response I assume Socrates might give depends on the guidelines, and
because my opinion of the final argument is the same as Socrates, I will prove counter arguments
against the guidelines I have used. The guidelines used were the following:
1) One must listen to opinions of the experts
2) One must live a just life and so one must never wrong others even if they have wronged him.
3) A just life entails obeying the law
4) Because the law in the end is applied by a mass of people who are not all experts on justice we
must treat the law as a separate entity from the people who administer it.
5) Socrates has benefited from the city greatly and has never attempted to change its laws while
being given numerous opportunities to do so. He also has rarely left the city and as stated in the
apology he would rather die than be exiled. So he must obey the law.
The second part of guideline 2 requires that never wronging others even if they have
wronged you being an integral component of being just. But what exactly is justice? Socrates
accepts that justice is a species of the genus virtue as evidenced by the Meno, but he never gave
virtue an objective definition. So this leaves justice as a species of something that lacks an objective
definition, so naturally we lack a definition for justice. So why does Socrates think that never
wronging others even if we have been wronged is a component of justice?
Guideline 4 implies that complete separation of the law from the people is possible when it
is not, the laws themselves have been written and modified by people, supposedly experts, and they
are administered by the people as well. Therefore it is arguably very difficult to separate the law
from the people. The experts on law are not part of the masses, by virtue of being more
knowledgable, but they are still people. So this presents a problem for Guideline 3 that is never
properly addressed in the Crito, what is the criteria for defining an expert? For the body an expert is
the physical trainer not the masses, because he has the greater positive effect on the body than the

Sultan !7
non experts. However, the world is inhabited by many personal fitness trainers, so how do we
determine who is the better expert? In spirit of the Socratic method we can simulate a conversation
between Socrates and myself in an effort to answer this question.
Me: How would we even identify an expert Socrates? By his positive effect?
Socrates: Yes
Me: what is the effect of the expert on justice, would you say Is it writing good laws? Yes
Me: But what are good laws?
Socrates: We can say they are the laws that can control the people well.
Me: But then the dictator which imposes laws that subjugate the people and control them
completely can be considered a good law maker, would you agree?
Socrates: Yes, but the dictator is inherently unfair by virtue of being a dictator.
Me: Well Socrates, wouldnt that implies that good laws are the ones that provide equal opportunity
for all, am I correct? Yes..
Me: That in turn would imply that ultimate fairness is good which under a colloquial definition of
good is seemingly true, but again consider this Socrates. Do we have a definition of good?
Socrates: No.
Me: So we cannot claim to know for certain that ultimate fairness is good and thus we cannot claim
to know that the best law maker is the one that is ultimately fair. Yes..
Me: Then we must define good before defining who the expert on law is because, again, we have
failed in identifying who he is.
As evidenced by the dialogue, guidelines 4 and 3 when combined together have many
implications. The questions that arise from this combination need to be addressed prior to reaching
the conclusion Socrates reaches in his argument in the first part. Although I agree with the final
conclusion Socrates could potentially reach, that the law can be broke if it is unjust, I would not
have followed the same guidelines.

Sultan !8
Works Cited
Plato. Five Dialogues 2nd ed. Trans. G. M. A. Grube. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co. 2002. Print.