For over 2,500 years there has been a controversy on whether or not we owe it to our fellow citizens to follow the laws of the society even if they are considered unjust, or if we have a civic duty to break these bad laws. In “The Crito” by Plato, Socrates and Crito discuss this said controversy. Socrates refused to follow the majority and break the law even if it promised his survival, while Crito tried to convince him that is was the right thing to do. I would argue that it is, in fact, our civic duty to break bad laws when the outcome could potentially be more beneficial than the law itself.
In the dialogue between Crito and Socrates in “The Crito” by Plato, they discuss the ongoing controversy of whether or not unjust laws should be broken. On the one hand, Crito argues that Socrates owes it to society to break the law and escape being sent to his death. On the other hand, Socrates contends that the laws were in place for a reason and they must be followed. While trying to justify Socrates’ decision to obey the law he asks Crito, “...ought we to follow the opinion of the many and to fear them; or the opinion of the one man who has understanding…” (Plato). In questioning this, Socrates is bringing to
…show more content…
Just like Crito thought it was Socrates civic duty to disobey the unjust laws, there are people today who would make the same argument. One example of this issue in today’s society is the law making marijuana illegal, even for medical uses. Marijuana is classified as a schedule one drug, right up there with heroine. The reason I and many others believe this law to be unjust is because the drug has proven to be medically beneficial to people with certain illnesses and disorders. In the states that have not legalized marijuana, there are people who feel the need to break this law anyway, because in certain situations individuals feel like have no other way of relieving themselves from