A Critical Reconsideration of the Arguments of Socrates for Political Obligation
A Critical Reconsideration of the Arguments of Socrates for Political Obligation

Summary/Abstract: In one of Plato’s major dialogues, "The Crito", Socrates, as the leading protagonist, addressed one of the major questions and concerns of political philosophy. The question is: what should be the relationship between the state and citizens? This question raises the problem of political obligation, which is about the moral requirement or duty of citizens to obey the laws and directives of the state, for the first time in the history of philosophy. In defense of political obligation (the duty of citizens to obey the laws of their state) in the dialogue, Socrates demonstrated his respect for Athenian law in his refusal to flee his death sentence. His arguments for political obligation can be summed up in three categories, which are interconnected: first is the argument from the supremacy of the state; second is the argument from gratitude; and third, is the argument from contract. These arguments, for Socrates, justify the total obedience of an individual to the laws of his state. However, different philosophers throughout the epochs that succeeded Socrates have reacted to some of the issues raised by Socrates. Nevertheless, the question of political obligation remains inconclusively discussed in political philosophy; hence, it is an issue that is relevant in contemporary times. Against this background, we retrace the arguments as originally formulated by Socrates, re-examine them in light of the responses of other political philosophers, and argue in this paper using the methods of analysis and critical argumentation, that Socrates’ arguments are not sufficient to justify obedience.

• Details
• Contents