Abstract

The Crito is often interpreted as a dialogue in which Plato argues for full obedience to the state authority. In the Apology, on the other hand, Socrates recalls occasions on which he was disobedient. The most important example is the hypothetical ban on philosophy. In my article I show that there is no inconsistency between these dialogues and that in obeying the state authority, Socrates follows his main principle that one never ought to commit injustice. From this standpoint, the speech of the laws in the Crito does not include Socrates' views and its only aim is to persuade Crito that Socrates' decision was right.