Examining Socrates' Views on Just and Unjust Laws

Is there a such thing of unjust, and just laws? If these unjust laws actually exist, should one disobey these laws if unjust. These questions can be applied to Socrates, a wise philosopher, who is on death row, for disobeying the law in the novel “Five Dialogues”. revised by John M. Cooper. Socrates believes that if he broke an unjust law, then one should still be penalized for these actions, even if that law that is being broken is considered unjust. Socrates would rather die than to actually escape from his wrongdoing. Is Socrates theory of the situation infact not conclusive? In this paper, I will argue that Socrates’ argument of what is unjust and just is not persuasive, but he contradicts himself and his arguments, and one should not succumb

to death by an unjust law.
In the chapter “Crito” of “Five Dialogues” Socrates is in his cell jail after he failed to persuade the jury in his favor that he was in fact not guilty of corruption of the youth and impiety, and now is getting ready to face execution in the coming days. Socrates well known companion, Crito, as well as others come and visit him, planning an escape for Socrates. Crito tries to persuade him to escape by bringing up arguments of: abandonment of Socrates family, don’t deprive the people who follow Socrates of his knowledge, and don’t make him, (Crito) as well as the others look bad to the majority. Realizing whom Socrates is, he has to examine his situation, whether he should escape or not, and from that on he begins his rant about the what is unjust and just.
The first argument Socrates introduces is; disregard the majority of opinion. Socrates states, “consider then, do you not think it a sound statement that one must not value all of the opinions of men, but some and not others, nor the opinions of all men, but those of some and not of others?” (Cooper 49). What Socrates is arguing is, why does Crito care for the majority of opinions? Is it right to accept everybody’s opinion aside from a few who commit to actually living the good and beautiful life? This is actually why Socrates is in the predicament he is in now, because he did not adhere to the majority of opinion, and now he’s being executed for it. Socrates continues on with examples of listening and following the majority opinion, and says people should not listen to the majority, but instead the opposites; which are beautiful and good.
However, the second argument that is presented from Socrates, is by him committing an unjust act, he therefore is destroying his part of his body. Socrates states, “And is life worth living for us with that part of us corrupted that unjust action harms and just action benefits? Or do you think that part of us, whatever it is, that is concerned with justice, and injustice, is inferior to the body.” (50.) What he is trying to explain is that the the ‘part’ of the body, or more so the soul, is considered to be inferior to the rest of the body when it comes to what is just and unjust. Socrates explains that with him escaping, he is ruining his body like a disease would ruin a body. With him being the type of philosopher he is, it would not be just for him to try to escape. If he was to escape he would not be able to live with himself and would rather die. Not only is Socrates explaining that it would corrupt his soul, but he’s also explaining that just because an unjust act is cast upon us does not mean someone should retaliate back with an unjust act as well. For example, two wrongs don’t make a right. One should not commit an unjust act just because they have been wronged in the doing. The most important thing is to live the good and just life, because the just life is the good and beautiful life.
In the final argument, Socrates states that he agreed to abide by the Laws of Athens, and in that he agreed to not only the just laws, but the unjust laws as well. By staying in the city with the exception of traveling during war, Socrates demonstrates his agreement with the laws. Socrates claims it is not the laws that are unjust, but the citizens of Athens who are unjust, saying, “Then I state the next point, or rather I ask you: when one has come to an agreement that is with someone, should one fulfill it or cheat on it” (53.) Continuing with Socrates argument, he claims that by agreeing to the City’s laws, an attempt to escape would not only be breaking the agreement, but would be harming the people. Socrates essentially believes the city would think he is attempting to destroy the city, the laws, and all the people in the city (53). Socrates would be committing harm to the people, because he believes that by committing an unjust act, it will follow to others believing that they can do the same. As he claims, he would rather abide by the verdict that was presented to him, then to commit an unjust act and potentially bring about the city’s downfall.
His first argument in which he states that one should not agree with the majority of opinion is contradictory to his later statement in which he explains that he cannot or will not attempt to escape because he would be breaking his agreement with the majority.

Is this not Socrates contradicting himself? He is explaining one should not listen to the majority of people, but then he’s essentially saying he cannot escape because he agrees to abide by the unjust law which was created by the majority of opinion (). For example, that is like someone saying “Oh, don’t listen that one person they’re bad influence,” but then that same person who just explained not to listen the person who is the cause of bad influence is not agreeing to what they are saying them. That is why his argument is not persuasive, because he does indeed contradict his own

statements.
The next argument that can be considered contradictory. When talking about how one should never do wrong it return, which he is essentially saying two wrongs don’t make a right, I disagree with that statement, because in some cases two wrongs can actually make it right, if it is beneficial to the person who was wronged. For example, if a criminal is trying to steal a purse, and a person witness that unjust action, and by witnessing that unjust act decides to punch them in the face stopping the crime; is that not justified at two wrongs make a right. So, in some cases the two wrongs do not make a right saying can be re evaluated, and be put in a situation where it can actually make a right.
Now, Socrates final and the weakest argument personally to me, is his argument about that by him escaping he is harming the people. When he states this, right from the get go I was perplexed. How can one person harm a whole coherent of people. First, the reason he is being executed is because the people don’t agree with him. So, does he really think by escaping, he is harming anybody in the process? Whether he is dead or has escaped, the people who he humiliates will not care either way, as long as Socrates is out of their hair. Another thing he presented was that people would follow in his footsteps and commit the same unjust act, that this would leave to a whole downfall of the city of Athens. Again, how can one person, who was claimed disapproved by many people bring down a whole city. Another thing that he hinted at, was the laws not being unjust, but the people making the unjust decision based off of the law. When one actually thinks about it, is it not the the citizens who make the law since, Athens was democratic back then? Should one get out of agreement it is considered unjust? That is something Socrates would disagree and say no, one should not get out of agreement even though it is presented as unjust. That is something I completely disagree with. If a wife is being abused by her husband, she should be able get out if the agreement of marriage, because their relationship is now toxic.
One might object that Socrates did not just up and way so “no”, but he presented a case for each where Crito turned his argument towards Socrates argument. One can say that as Socrates is a philosopher that is his duty to always do the just thing. In the text when he states that he would rather die than to suffer, it is showing that if he escapes he’s living a life in suffering. if he leaves then his suffering can lead to him not being the wise philosophical ruler he has become to be, because of his endless suffering. Essentially his escapement would have been pointless. The analogy he used for is argument is: And is life worth living with a body that is corrupted? (50). For example, is it worth living in pain, because of cancer or is it better to just die, and live the after life in peace? Also, when Socrates explains: one must do no wrong, he clearly states after that he has held that belief for a long time, and that he will continue to hold onto that belief (52). Essentially you are saying he could escape, but from what he has stated in text, he is confirming in his belief that one must do bring no harm to one, and from what he believes he would be doing harm to someone by escaping. One could also argue that, the city of Athens could be harmed because Socrates followers could come up to be a philosopher's just like him. They are put into the same situation where they would escape to, creating this set trend for philosophers to commit these unjust acts. As Socrates states, it is hurting the city in process, because it is the law and it is being broken.
While Socrates mentions that escaping his cell would lead to the corruption of his soul, his comparison of the body to the soul actually contradicts his argument.

For example, if a person comes down with the flu they can go to doctor and receive medicine to aid in their recovery. Just just like the body has been healed, can a soul not healed as well? Socrates states, it’s like the body being corrupted by disease, and in a lot of cases a disease can be cured with the help of a doctor, or even just some medicine. So yes, he may have been hurt for a while for committing this unjustly act, but over time he can heal and get better with the help of himself, or his companions. The next questions raised is Socrates followers potentially being put into the same situations as him, and my answer to that would be no. I think that argument is invalid, during the time of trial as Socrates was defending himself, not once did his followers come to his defense, which Socrates claims during his hearing. So by that one act that his followers couldn’t even stand up and defend him, it is unlikely that they would follow in his footsteps and reenact the same situation. But, just to entertain the idea, incase it was hypothetically to happen, then I don’t think it would cause this be uproar upon the City of Athens because, again as I stated before these people who are breaking the same laws as Socrates are escaping from the city, getting out of the City’s

way.
As we come to conclusion, (restate thesis) I will not end on the note of there is no right answer to his situation, but in fact another answer. If I were were in the jail cell in lace of Crito, I would bring up the points that presented in my paper. If Socrates could still find a way to turn my argument around for his better, then he was in fact the one right, but if he has no answer for me, or his answer is inconsistent, then I am for the most part in the right.