It is often found that in many occurrences of society, when an injustice or wrongdoing has been inflicted upon an individual by the government, the individual is provoked to either, retaliate or escape the oppression. In Plato’s Crito, Socrates is condemned to death because of his occupation and must defend his obligations to remain in Athens to Crito. Socrates dismisses the fact that he has been judged unjustly by the Athenian democracy and rejects Crito’s proposal to help him flee Athens. By defending his decision on principles of rational-based ethics, Socrates attempts to persuade Crito that, neither his nor the consent of their friends, justify the plans of escape. Socrates is held accountable for his own actions and therefore, abides …show more content…
Bound to this unwritten and non-verbal contract, Socrates chooses freely to live in Athens and be placed under their obligations as an Athenian citizen. Therefore, since the tacit contract is solely based on behavior, Socrates’ decision to live in Athens for seventy years, procreate a new generation, as well as obey the laws without opposition are representative of his outlook that escaping is not morally permissible. For example, Socrates explains from Athens’ point of view by stating, “Now, however, those words do not make you ashamed, and you pay no heed to us, the laws, as you plan to destroy us, and you act like the meanest type of slave, by trying to run away, contrary to your commitments and your agreement to live as a citizen under us” (Plato 55). Plato’a Social Contract Theory is efficient because it allows individuals to realize their obligations and commitments to society through a contract. It is beneficial for citizens to carry out roles as social beings and consent to social obligations as it binds them to the laws, legal structure and political agreements of their