Must we always obey the law?
Follow Crito’s argument without turning it into a slogan of absolute obedience. The dialogue brings together injustice suffered, commitments made and the responsibility of the person who acts.
An original introduction. This guide accompanies the work; it is neither the complete text nor a translation.
A very concrete proposal
Crito offers his condemned friend a way to escape. He raises the reputation of Socrates’ friends, his children and the practical possibility of departure. These reasons are not absurd: the dialogue takes them seriously before shifting the question. Should the decision be measured against the opinion of the majority or against what is just?
Not returning injustice for injustice
Socrates asks whether one wrong may be answered with another. This principle organises the discussion, but applying it to escape still requires an argument. Do not skip that step: accepting a general principle does not mean automatically accepting a particular conclusion. Examine exactly what harm the escape would cause, and to whom.
When the Laws speak
Plato personifies the Laws, which recall education received, opportunities to leave and commitments associated with life in the city. This scene calls for discussion, not repetition. Compare it with the refusals of unjust orders in Apology. The tension between conscience and political membership remains a productive question, rather than an immediately available universal rule.
Commitment to a community and the demand for justice require arguments; they do not always coincide without difficulty.
Your turn to think.
- Does suffering an injustice justify every possible response?
- Which commitments to a community can be revised, and under what conditions?
Your selection and progress stay in this browser.