Social Contract Theory Shown in Plato’s Crito

Mary Humphreys

Professor Harold Hansen

PHL 210 Introduction to Philosophy

Module 5-2 Final Prospectus

15 May 2016

Briefly explain the problem I have chosen.

 An explanation of the social contract theory shown in Plato’s CRITO would be the agreement between the society and the people who are it. A society that provides to the education of people young and old, the basic rules of government (including rules of marriage) and all who agree to obey to the laws of the society. The moral and political contract that came about during the Age of Enlightenment which the prime desire was being protected. The social contract theory was organized during the Age of Enlightenment in which there was a government and laws in place. Some of the issues that CRITO shows are how to choose which laws were to be obeyed, which to be ignored and how to create on the fly or morally the idea of prioritizing some laws over others (Cooper).

How does it arise?

It arises when Socrates is accused of not seeing the Gods that Athens does, declaring the idea of his own made Gods and therefore with the teachings he has corrupted the minds of the young people. Therefore, Socrates has broken the unspoken and unwritten agreements that he has followed for years.

What issues does it present?

I see the issues as being both political and social. The first I would say is that the people within the State feel they owe some sort of loyalty to it and without that loyalty the State can’t exist. Another issue would be that the State is seen by the moral standards that it has and when thesocial contract did exist the people will quickly violate them. Still another issue I saw was the fact that the people wanted the State to give them protection and for getting this protection they have lost or gave up some or all of their freedom and rights.

What is my position on my chosen topic?

We have a definite obligation to obey laws, there is no justification for breaking the laws. My reasoning would be that laws teach us to be good because we obey them, even if they are bad. One can’t treat the unjust with the unjust. To live in a society justifies any injustice that might go along with it. But by choosing the unjust punishment one is having to accept injustice against oneself. It is not right for someone who has been obeying a bad law to be given an unjust punishment.

What is an objection to my position?

We obey laws because we are afraid of the punishment that comes when we break them. But we also obey them when we are not afraid. But in other nations people ignore the laws of their governments. They see their government twisting, applying them for the wrong reasons or just being completely ignorant and ignoring them. Of course the government of those nations act as if they are above the law. So the people of the nation’s think that if the government can do this and get away with it they can too. Our moral and practical judgements are what makes us be obedient to the law, and if a law does not reflect a moral agreement in society or coordinate behavior in a helpful way then it may be ignored as unnecessary or irrelevant if citizens know they will not be caught breaking it (Oxford). The fact that a law exists is not morally significant on its own and that no moral obligation to obey the law is grounded simply in the fact that a law exists.