Think about the main points of this dialogue: why do laws exist; what happens when we disagree with a law; what happens when we don't comply with a law? Which of these stances (Crito's or Socrates') do you agree with on this issue? Why? Be sure to state your own position in this debate.

Numerous historical/political figures have demonstrated many different ways of overthrowing unjust laws: Oscar Schindler, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mahatma Ghandi, Sojourner Truth, Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, George Washington... their methods range from peaceful, subtle protest in choosing a seat on a bus to violent, grand-scale revolution. Think about their methods; think about their goals.

You may want to focus specifically on a certain aspect of the argument:

• Why do laws exist? What purposes do laws serve? What happens when a law is "wrong"? What is an appropriate method of rebelling against an unjust law?
• Socrates argued that he must uphold the law because it is law, and that was just; Crito argued that the law itself was unjust, and that rebelling would then be the just action. Which argument do you agree with? Why?
• What implications would the different possible actions have upon Socrates, his reputation, and his teachings? Would not breaking the law have just as much of an effect as breaking the law? How? Why?

This paper is due Thursday, February 13^th.