In Plato’s Crito and Apology of Socrates, Socrates argues for a person’s limitless obedience to the state. In Crito, Socrates makes a pro-obedience argument by making the law speak. The argument posits that the laws and the state provide everything for a person, including education, safety, protection, and resources (Plato, 1979). Therefore, the state fulfills part of its contract with the citizen, and the latter should repay in kind by acknowledging the obligation to obey. It connects with Socrates’s arguments on obedience/conscience in Apology since respecting the contract also means obeying willingly to preserve order (Plato, 2012). The argument aligns with his life/actions in an ambiguous way; he obeyed the state, with one exception for the verdict he saw as unjust. He refused to comply with directions to reject his freedom of thought and the opportunity to philosophize and preferred death instead (Plato, 1979). Thus, one should obey the government when its directions preserve order and are justified.
Interestingly, Henry David Thoreau would respond to Socrates’s arguments by stating that the burden of obedience is limited by what a citizen regards as just laws. According to him, “the penalty of disobedience” to oppose laws that maximize injustice is less costly for one’s self-worth than obeying (Thoreau, 1849, p. 17). Socrates asserts that fleeing from jail would be a morally wrong choice, and Thoreau (1849) argues that prison is “the true place for a just man” in an unjust state (p. 14). Thus, Thoreau urged Socrates to stay in jail, supporting his original decision.
Finally, I disagree with both thinkers when it comes to obedience. In Apology, Socrates accepts the death sentence, claiming that only God knows “which of us goes to a better thing” (Plato, 1979, p. 23). In Crito, he explains that obeying when there is “a contract and agreement” with the government is essential (Plato, 2012, p. 9). He delegates the process of identifying laws’ appropriateness to the omniscient creator, which I do not perceive as correct. Also, he does not clarify how the citizen’s dissatisfaction with the contract should be handled. Thoreau (1849) basically posits the need to disobey whenever the state’s actions lead to injustice and obey in an opposite situation. From my perspective, the philosopher does not consider that injustice is often relative rather than absolute. Finally, an average citizen can be limited in knowledge to assess high-level decisions.
References
Plato. (1979). Apology of Socrates (T.G. West, Trans.). Cornell University Press. Web.
Plato. (2012). Crito (C. Woods & R. Pack, Trans.). Web.
Thoreau, H.D. (1849). On the duty of civil disobedience. Web.