The subject of this analysis is Socrates' philosophical work entitled Crito. The author offers some convincing arguments about the moral authority of the state. It may seem inconsistent with another fundamental statement of the philosopher in the same work, as well as with some other points of the Apology. I would argue that, even if these topics are somewhat related, the critical evolution of the moral authority of the state can plausibly be explained in such a way as to exclude any real inconsistency with other views on this topic. plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay A reader may find the opening argument surprising in point 51b of the Crito. The author states that the citizens of the state are its servants as the state provides them with a sense of security, education and other social benefits. This is why Socrates argues that the population is subordinate to the state and its regulations: in case a citizen does not agree with some local laws, he should "either persuade him or obey his orders", no matter whether is it safe or not. In the Apology, the main character accepts the fact of his death sentence based on these author's judgments. Thus, there is a connection between the statements of these two works. Another similar argument appears several paragraphs later, in 51e and 52 respectively. The philosopher argues that a citizen is like signing the contract with the state to remain part of its society by obeying all laws. This time Socrates does not insist that the state is always right and the citizen cannot try to deny the dogma. The author admits that if a citizen convinces of his state, he can avoid the law "or persuade us or do what we say" (52a). If the person fails to prove his point, this can result in the most severe punishment, including death. As mentioned previously, these points of the philosopher tend to contradict each other since, in the second case, Socrates states that one can reject the laws of the State by demonstrating a personal position. At the same time, both statements underline the dominant position of the state, making citizens almost slaves. They can, however, try to defend their position if they believe the state is behaving wrongly. The main idea is that the author's claim that a citizen must never do anything wrong sounds inconsistent with his belief that a citizen must always obey the final orders of the state. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now.Get a custom essay I still think, however, that the critical paragraphs on state authority in the Crito can be read in a way that makes them consistent with the philosopher's exhortation to never act so badly as with his remarks on disobedience in another work. To understand this, one should distinguish between two questions: (a) what the state might require a citizen to do and (b) what the state might require a citizen to endure. With this in mind, Socrates' statements can be interpreted in absolutely different ways.