Crito

Crito bribes his way into the jailhouse on the eve of Socrates' execution with a plan to spring him and flee the city.  First though, he has to convince Socrates that such a plan would be the just course of action, rather than one motivated simply by the fear of death, or, in Crito's case, motivated by the fear that he will be criticized for not helping his friend out of a jamb.  In fact, knowing that Socrates is to die tomorrow has left Crito a little hysterical, so Socrates himself has to sort of fill in an argument for him.   After quickly putting aside Crito's worry about what the majority will think of their course of action -- since when has Socrates worried about what 'they' think? -- he gets to the heart of the question about whether it is just for the wrongfully convicted to flee.

SOCRATES: As we have agreed so far, we must examine next whether it is just for me to try to get out of here when the Athenians have not acquitted me. If it is seen to be just, we will try to do so; if it is not, we will abandon the idea. As for those questions you raise about money, reputation, the upbringing of children, Crito, those considerations in truth belong to those people who easily put men to death and would bring them to life again if they could, without thinking; I mean the majority of men. For us, however, since our argument leads to this, the only valid consideration, as we were saying just now, is whether we should be acting rightly in giving money and gratitude to those who will lead me out of here, and ourselves d helping with the escape, or whether in truth we shall do wrong in doing all this. If it appears that we shall be acting unjustly, then we have no need at all to take into account whether we shall have to die if we stay here and keep quiet, or suffer in another way, rather than do wrong.

At this point, the dialog takes an interesting turn.  Having supplied Crito's side of the argument, Socrates goes on to supply the opposing side as well by personifying the laws and the state of Athens.  In other words, he is not arguing just one side here, but imagining a dialog where The Laws question him about whether it is just to flee.  This is an interesting rhetorical maneuver -- Socrates questioning himself -- but it also has a philosophical point.  It elevates The Laws into its own character, meaning that they are not just the opinion of the majority of Athenians.  And it's this tension that is at the heart of the dialog.  We know from the Apology that Socrates was unjustly convicted by a narrow majority of Athenians based on nothing more than the flimsy opinions of supposedly wise men irritated by his questions.  So wouldn't it be in keeping with the Socratic premise that it's only truth and justice that count, not mere opinion, to flee his death sentence -- this most unjust, yet effective, opinion of the majority?  Obviously, for Socrates to accept his sentence when it is avoidable, he has to draw some distinction between the majority opinion and The Law.

What Socrates ends up outlining in the voice of The Laws is a simple sort of social contract theory.  The Laws point out that he was born and raised in Athens, that he liked it well enough never to move or travel, that he gained from all his associations in the city, etc ... and that this implicitly expressed satisfaction is tantamount to an agreement and commitment to abide by the laws of the city.  In this sense, The Laws deserve more obedience than even a father, because Socrates has chosen voluntarily to live by them, and was always free to try and change them through the court of public opinion.  Given this agreement, it would be unjust and unwise for Socrates to disobey The Laws at this point.

"Be persuaded by us who have brought you up, Socrates. Do not value either your children or your life or anything else more than goodness, in order that when you arrive in Hades you may have all this as your defense before the rulers there. If you do this deed, you will not think it better or more just or more pious here, nor will any one of your friends, nor will it be better for you when you arrive yonder. As it is, you depart, if you depart, after being wronged not by us, the laws, but by men"

To me this reads as only an unconvincing fragment of a larger argument.  Athens being democratic, The Laws are explicitly constructed by majority opinion.  Why does Socrates suddenly reify the majority opinion he normally disparages when it takes this public form?  Does this magic somehow happen through the process of public debate?  Is the contract signed simply by being in the city, or is it really through participating in those debates?  The dialog seems to beg the question of what makes the laws of a democracy more just than the opinions of those in it.