Socrates first speaks of his responsibility: it would be shameful to not uphold the laws of Athens by escaping. He introduces the voice of the laws which tells him that it would be unjust for him to escape his cell: consider the law as a parent state, every one ought to obey his or her parents and the laws that they were brought up in. If Socrates escapes jail, then he will be disobeying his...
Socrates first speaks of his responsibility: it would be shameful to not uphold the laws of Athens by escaping. He introduces the voice of the laws which tells him that it would be unjust for him to escape his cell: consider the law as a parent state, every one ought to obey his or her parents and the laws that they were brought up in. If Socrates escapes jail, then he will be disobeying his parent. Therefore his contractual agreement is not to escape but to uphold the law. Could Plato here could be giving the Laws here in this essence their own voice, and give them their own entity, giving it like a human-like a feature which Socrates might be able to act unjustly. One could argue in this case in point, how far we can truly disconnect the laws of the state and the people who apply them. We see that both the people of Athens and the law of the state is condemning Socrates. So if both the people and the law are saying that Socrates must die than the law is siding with the people and the people are siding with the law just the same.
