ABSTRACT
The surface simplicity of the text supports that the puzzle of the Crito—the puzzle that generates the conflicting commentary—is one of appreciation rather than comprehension. Most contemporary explanations of the Crito, uncomfortable with the endorsement of a broad duty to obey law, distinguish what Socrates does from what he says. Either action—escape or compliance with the law—is morally permissible, and thus Socrates' choice between these morally neutral alternatives can be justified on purely prudential or non-moral grounds. Young simply announces a conclusion of political theory that is, at least, consistent with Socrates' action and general claim—the duty to obey is nearly universal—but now there are no reasons to support that claim. The evidence for the rhetorical interpretation is both stylistic and substantive. The central intellectual puzzle of the Crito that underlies many of the above interpretations is the clash between mere opinion and moral truth.
