Paper Summary:

This paper is a criticism of Socrates' argument for civil obedience, as presented in the "Crito". The paper attempts to disprove Socrates' points that one should never do wrong and that it is always wrong to disobey the state. The paper concludes that Socrates does not provide solid or reasonable evidence to support the claims he makes in "Crito", and therefore, his argument for civil obedience invalid.

From the Paper:

"A similar inconsistency is seen when Socrates argues that the opinion of the many should be disregarded because the many do not know what is right or wrong, just or unjust, good or evil, or honorable and dishonorable. The problem is that Socrates is accepting the law as knowing what as best, without proving that the law is based on right and wrong. Since the law represents the opinion of the many, it is especially questionable that the law would know right from wrong. This is an idea asserted by Plato where he argued that the leaders of society do not know what it right or wrong or what is good. Based on this, he said that "the right sort of state cannot exist unless philosophers rule it" (Irwin 107). This shows that the law should not be accepted as right, but should be proven as being right before it is completely accepted. Socrates does not make this attempt, which represents a flaw in his thinking."

Sample of Sources Used:

• Austin, J. The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2000.
• Irwin, T. A History of Western Philosophy: Classical Thought. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.
• Plato. "Crito." In Five Dialogues: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, Phaedo. G.M.A. Grube (Translator). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1981.

Visitors who viewed this Argumentative Essay also liked these:

• Essay # 46017 : "Socrates, Obedience and the Law"
• Comparison Essay # 50608 : "Civil Obedience and Moral Freedom in Political Thinking"
• Essay # 54322 : "The Patriotism of Socrates in "Crito"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: