The Duty to Obey: Conscience vs. The Social Contract

Is it not the case that in the *Crito*, I present a strong argument for obeying the laws, even when I believe I have been unjustly condemned? Yet, in the *Apology*, I also declare that I will disobey any command that forces me to abandon my philosophical mission, a divine duty, as it were. How does one reconcile these two positions, you ask? Perhaps it is through recognizing that while one must generally adhere to the laws of the state, there is a higher obligation to seek truth and virtue, which, in some circumstances, may require one to act against the state's decrees.

While Simmias makes a valid point regarding the potential for societal chaos were each person to decide when to forsake civic duty, I still believe Socrates' stance merits consideration. It is difficult to reconcile the decrees of a state with the yearning for true understanding. If the state's laws hinder the pursuit of knowledge and virtue—the very objectives that grant life its significance—how can we blindly obey? We risk becoming prisoners of ignorance, trapped within a system that values conformity over truth.

This seems a rather convenient arrangement, doesn't it? While I appreciate the nuance, it appears Socrates crafts a justification tailored precisely to his circumstances. It begs the question: who decides when this "higher obligation" trumps civic duty, and how can we avoid societal dissolution if each individual becomes the arbiter of justice?