The subject of this analysis is Socrates' philosophical work entitled Crito. The author offers compelling arguments about the moral authority of the state. This may seem inconsistent with another fundamental statement by the philosopher in the same work as well as other points in the Apologies. I would like to argue that even if these arguments are somehow related, the critical evolution of the moral authority of the state can plausibly be explained in a way that excludes any real inconsistency with other points of view on this subject. plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay A reader can find the initial striking argument in article 51b of the Crito. The author claims that the citizens of the state are its servants because the state provides them with a sense of security, education, and other social benefits. This is why Socrates proposes that the population be subordinated to the state and its regulations: in the case where a citizen does not agree with certain local laws, he must "either persuade him or obey his orders ”, whether it is safe or not. In the Apologies, the main character accepts the fact of his death sentence based on the author's judgments. There is therefore a link between the assertions of these two works. Another similar argument appears several paragraphs later, in the 51st and 52 respectively. The philosopher argues that a citizen amounts to signing a contract with the state to remain an integral part of its society by obeying all laws. This time Socrates does not insist that the state is always right and that the citizen cannot try to reject it. The author admits that if a citizen convinces the state of his truth, he can avoid the law, “either persuade us or do what we say” (52a). If the person fails to prove his or her point, it may result in the harshest punishment, including death. As said previously, these points of the philosopher tend to contradict each other since, in the second case, Socrates mentions that one can refuse the laws of the State by proving a personal position. At the same time, both statements emphasize the dominant position of the state, making citizens almost slaves. They can, however, try to defend their position if they believe the state is acting inappropriately. The main idea is that the author's assertion that a citizen must never do harm seems inconsistent with his belief that a citizen must always obey the final orders of the state. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.Get a custom essayI still think, however, that one can read the critical paragraphs on state authority in the Crito in such a way as to make them consistent with the exhortation of the philosopher never to be mistaken as well as with his remarks concerning disobedience in another work. To understand this, we must distinguish between two questions: (a) what the state can require a citizen to do, and (b) what the state can require a citizen to endure . In this light, Socrates' statements can be interpreted in absolutely different ways..