The first claim that Crito makes is that, if Socrates remains …show more content…
In Socrates’ case, it seems evident that his imprisonment, and thus his death sentence, is unjust. So, should he be obliged to follow this law and do nothing to prevent his sentence from being carried out? This dialogue confronts the distinction between morality and legality, and the fact that the two are not always one and the same. To say that all laws should always be followed, regardless of the circumstances, would be unjust. Socrates says that he will obey god before he obeys man, “let me follow the intimations of the will of God” (Plato, 37). which means that he will not betray his values and beliefs for the sake of obeying the state’s laws. Yet, Socrates still refuses to escape prison. This is because, although he may have violated the laws of the city for the purpose of remaining true to his beliefs, he cannot disobey the penalty imposed on him for defying said laws, because doing so would negate the laws and regulations of the city, which are the same laws and regulations that make it possible for humans to live as a civilized