Good Man v. Good Citizen: Plato's View
When Plato writes about the struggle between the "good person" and the "good
citizen" in The Last Days of Socrates, there seems to be an overlapping of the two because
they are so closely related. Socrates says that "[A man] has only one thing to consider
in performing any action; that is whether he is acting justly or unjustly, like a good man
or a bad one" (Apology, 28 b-c). It seems that, even when considering whether or not
to be a good citizen and follow orders and laws without exception, one must decide
whether or not his actions will be just. This is refuted, however, when Socrates says
in Apology, 28d "When a man has once taken up his stand, either because it seems best
to him or in obedience to his orders, there I believe he is bound to remain and face the
danger, taking account of death or anything else before dishonour" and in
Apology, 29b that "to disobey my superior, whether god or man, is bad and
dishonourable." By this reasoning, being a good man would require following the
orders, not only of the gods, but of earthly superiors and, therefore, being a good
citizen. The idea of dishonour seems to be a significant downfall of a good person in
Plato's writing and, therefore, must have been a major part of Athenian life. Socrates'
argument with Crito support these ideas of dishonour and justice with regard to being
Plato argues that a man must follow the laws of his State because "if the legal
judgment which are pronounced in [a State] have no force but are nullified and
destroyed by private persons" the State and its laws are all also threatened with
destruction (Crito, 50b). Plato's reasoning in Crito then follows that threatening to
destroy the State and its laws (Socrates' escaping) in retaliation of an unjust action of
...