Socrates Argument In The Crito

In the Crito, Socrates argues that it would be morally impermissible for him to escape jail and evade execution, despite being expected to, because he has made a just agreement being choosing to live in Athens to follow its rules. He argues that if one chooses to stay in a city, one can try to persuade the government to change its laws or it must obey them, even if they are unjust laws. Socrates’ argument shows that he would be an ardent opponent of Dr. Martin Luther King’s civil disobedience and subsequent defense of these actions. Yet, Socrates’s argument is flawed and cannot withstand examination, specifically regarding the prima facie duty to sometimes break just agreements. King did not act in a morally impermissible way when he broke the segregation laws of Birmingham because, in fact, he had a moral obligation to break these unjust laws. Socrates’ argument in the Crito, if …show more content…
Socrates argues that an individual enters into a just agreement with a government by choosing to live there. In exchange for giving one an education and “equal footing”, citizens must follow the laws of the city. If a citizen is unsatisfied with the given laws orbelieves them to be unjust, he or she may seek to persuade the government to change the laws. Socrates says, “One must obey the commands of one’s city and country, or persuade it as to the nature of justice” (Plato 51). Because King is willingly choosing to stay in Birmingham (in fact, he is not even from there), he is agreeing to follow the rules of the land or seek to change the laws through lawful means. Socrates would argue that King can, and even should, work to change unjust laws; however, he would not support breaking traffic and protesting laws to do so. Instead, King should write letters, vote for the candidate of his choice, or even run for office. If these efforts are still not successful, King must comply with the