Analyzing Socrates Views On Obeying The Law In Crito

Contextualizing Socrates's Views on Obeying the Law in Crito
In Crito, by Plato, Socrates argues that individuals should obey their country's laws, not because all governments are just, but because citizens are obligated to comply with their state's laws, even when they are unjust. Socrates argues that adherence to the government is a moral duty as individuals agree to abide by said laws in exchange for living in said government. I will argue, however, that Socrates’ views are too specific to his own life and fail to consider the legitimacy of the government’s actions and the context of individual circumstances to be applied universally.
In the story, the author Plato details a conversation between his teacher, Socrates, and Socrates’ old friend

He says that Athens brought Socrates to birth and “nurtured and educated” him meaning that he could not deny that he is Athens’ “offspring and servant” (50e). Subsequently, he asserts that in the same way as sons cannot be considered equal to their fathers, individuals cannot be deemed equal to their government, and thus must comply with its regulations. He goes so far as to claim that their country should be honored before anything or anyone else and individuals have no “right to retaliate against [their] government” regardless of how unjust their actions might be (51a). Once entered into this agreement with a government, Socrates gives three options for individuals in the face of laws that they feel are unjust. Persuade it, obey, or endure in silence whatever you are expected to endure as “To do so is right” (51b). The option to persuade the government is an important one, as it allows an avenue with which to make change for individuals already bound by their agreement with a

Suppose a wealthy individual is of voting age and finds a law unjust and would like to leave Athens. In this scenario, he has the means to do so and a decision to stay would be Socrates, binding him to follow the laws obediently. However, imagine this individual is disabled, and physically cannot leave Athens. Assuming his efforts to persuade the government are futile, his decision to stay would not be made on his own accord, and it would not be unjust for him to break the laws he deems unjust. Furthermore, imagine a healthy individual with the financial means to leave Athens. He is, however, heavily invested in his community, educating underprivileged children and providing food and money to those in need. If an unjust law were to pass according to this individual, forcing him to pick between abiding by an unjust law and abandoning his community. Socrates, however, may argue that leaving a society is no easy decision, and an individual should be willing to sacrifice to live justly. However, in this instance, it may be morally worse for the individual to abandon the less fortunate people who depend on him than it would be to stay and break the new unjust