Leah Coon

10/08/15
Journal 2
In Platos Crito, Socrates debates escape with Crito and determines that any
violation of the law in the country in which he has resided his entire life would go against his
definition of justice. Clearly, Socrates sense of morality is a prominent factor in his decision not
to allow Crito to assist him in fleeing into exile. According to Socrates, a general guideline for
being just is to follow the law, and not doing so would set a bad example. Therein he is loyal to
both his country and the law that he has lived with for years, and this guides his idea of justice.
In exchange for certain benefits, there are rules that you must follow that is, if you wish to
follow societys idea of morality and justice. Going against these rules, or rather violating your
own morals, would be an injustice to yourself. I thought this was another main point of the
passage. Its very important to remain true to what you believe. This goes beyond the idea of
societys laws and gets to the basic question of how you can live with yourself. Even if you dont
have as strict of a moral code as Socrates, its still an incredible testament of character to remain
true to what you idealize in life. Thus, regardless of the reasoning behind his sense of justice, its
key to note that he wanted to prove that the act of escaping was against it rather than the
opposite. This is something that I felt strongly about as I think its applicable in any situation. An
important aspect of this overall passage is Socrates insistence that his personal morals must not
be abandoned; he remains true to what he feels and has previously stated even when it is no
longer convenient to do so.
On another level, Socrates also accepts Athens justice as an extension of his own. He
cites that he has chosen to live in this place and has seen the way justice has been done and has

never before wanted to leave. Furthermore, he makes a key point about the implied contract he
has entered by living there for so many years and following the law in previous situations. This is
an argument that I would agree with in some ways. Whatever position you choose to take should
be seen through until the end, not just until it is inconvenient for you. Also, when entering
specific places you do agree to meet the expectations of said place. For example, by enrolling in
a college, you have agreed, in exchange for an education, to follow the rules and guidelines set
by the college. PSU is becoming a smoke-free campus, and so each time I enter the campus Ive
agreed not to smoke, even if it were something I did regularly outside of school. Another
example of this could be cheating in any school. These things are against the code of the school
Ive chosen to go to, and if I thought they were ridiculous or unjust, I could have gone to another
school, just as Socrates could have left Athens. If I were to leave as soon as I got in trouble for
violating one of these rules, it would reflect very poorly on me and seem only like I was trying to
escape punishment despite any other reason I might have. Thus, I think the argument of Socrates
about following the implied contract is a sound one.
On the other hand, I think there are certain exceptions that have to be pointed out. Not all
settings are entered voluntarily, even if it appears so. Sometimes, its too inconvenient or
dangerous to leave somewhere, and thus a person should not be subjected to rules that they feel
are unfair solely because they are coerced to live in an environment that enforces them. This is a
tricky idea to actually give action to, but in this instance Im thinking of aspects of the law that
you are unable to accept as just. An example of this would be something like abortion being
banned in certain states just because it is a law does not make it just, implied contract or not. It
seems unjust in itself to be punished for attempting to act in line with your own moral code.

However, this is an extremely subjective idea, and it would be too difficult to determine what or
who is allowed to be above the law.