Abstract
The paper discusses the possibility of persuading the Laws, which would, according to the Crito dialogue, allow citizens to disobey a law or its regulation without such actions being unrightful. First, I will summarize the authoritarian position of the Laws and will introduce the existing interpretations of the persuasion of the Laws.
Then I will show why I don't believe that any of these interpretations has proven satisfactory. Subsequently, I will present my own interpretation of the persuasion of the Laws, which references Socrates' principle of following reason and the strongest argument available.
I believe that persuading the Laws corresponds to a dialectical exchange of arguments with the Laws themselves or, in particular, successfully opposing their arguments, which Socrates demonstrates in, for example, the Crito dialogue. My interpretation thus solves the problems presented above (the relation to Socrates' own actions, an apparent inconsistency with The Defense of Socrates dialogue), and at the same time reasonably explains why Socrates accepts the unjustness of the death penalty and remains in the prison.