Socrates Agreement Argument Analysis

The final reason Socrates presents against Crito’s offer of help is the Agreement Argument. The Agreement Argument follows that by participating in Athenian society, the citizens of Athens have implicitly agreed to obey the Laws. Socrates made an agreement to the State to follow the Laws, and it is just to keep to one's agreements, and so to escape would be to break an agreement and so Socrates ought not to escape with Crito (Plato, 1997b, §51c-52d). This agreement refers to is a form of political obligation which relies on the idea of tacit consent, which is formed solely by living as a citizen of Athens. Tacit consent is the idea that by living in Athens, the citizens have agreed to follow the Laws of Athens implicitly by benefiting from the organization, protection, and education of the State. The Tacit nature of the consent means that this is implied without actually being stated, as in the form of an oath of loyalty towards the state. This is an idea that Socrates alludes to throughout the dialogue but is most prominent towards the end of the dialogue with the Agreement argument as a kind of Social Contract. This Social Contract …show more content…
We argued that that the imprisonment of an innocent man has already undermined the Laws of Athens and so his escape would be just, in reversing the damage to the state. However, Socrates believes that one should ever wrong someone else, and he believes that his escape would undermine the Laws of Athens, and so under this justification, Socrates is justified in not escaping. We considered the idea that perhaps for Socrates his not escaping is not about political obligation but is instead a matter of maintaining his character, and if this is his true justification then he is justified in his