Socrates Arguments To Be Flawed In Plato's Crito

Socrates asks an interesting question which is; “[W]hy should we pay so much attention to what “most people” think?” -Socrates, In Plato's Crito (CA. 390 B.C.). Although, Socrates wasn't widely liked he debated long and deeply before ultimately making his decision to die or not. He believed that the state would be destroyed if people did not obey laws. I believe this argument to be flawed because Laws are put in place to keep citizens safe and governed. If people did not obey laws that would create another revolution between the government and people. Ultimately after going through each decision he went with being killed. Socrates honored his part in the contract, obeying by the laws that govern him; the state failed to honor their part in the contract. The state failed to prove that Socrates's was guilty of any real crime that warranted death. The state sentenced him to death for being a public nuisance; hardly a crime that deserves the death penalty.
The social contract is the most influential nonreligious account of legal obligation. To defend the idea of a social contract, we need the …show more content…
Take many of the cults throughout history that the one or two people created that caused a lot of issues. In the chapters we read there was stories of a coup attempt by one of Socrates followers. Therefore, I feel Socrates obeyed the law and let himself die as to show that the society matters more than him. I would argue these laws are broken every day with little to no effect on society. Now, yes, we all don't go and murder someone on a regular basis - this would for sure cause a revolution or mass disruption - especially if our government failed to arrest the perpetrators. Socrates made the strongest argument for the case of improving the state, an argument that he bet his actual life on. His final act only serves to validate everything he has argued for in the