Socrates presents a contrasting view in Plato’s Crito than he previously showed in the Apology. Why did Socrates appear to take differing accounts in the Crito after dismantling Meletus’ prosecution in the Apology, and demonstrating that the case made against him was completely unjust? Socrates’ speech in the Apology consisted of him defending himself against personal grievances from other Athenians, disassembling the charges of corrupting the youth and believing in false Gods, and proclaiming why what he did is good for the city. Contrarily, in the dialogue between Socrates and his friend, Crito, he attempts to convince Crito why accepting his death penalty is the right thing to do. If the Apology presents Socrates as the first philosophic
…show more content…
The laws say it would be wrong for Socrates to take the opportunity that had been arranged by his friends and violate the verdict. The first argumentative question brought up by the laws was: what happens if any individual that wants to set aside verdicts does as they please? If Socrates does so, and more than one person does it as well, then it contributes to destroying the laws and legal framework, the legal frameworks that other subjects and the society have to abide by, which would create chaos and disorder in the city. The state itself can be weakened by unjust law (Simmons, Discussion). By making an exception for himself, Socrates would be indirectly attacking the city, therefore, making political order more difficult to achieve …show more content…
Socrates put himself under the city of Athens by not leaving after so many years, and by doing so, he reaffirmed his acceptance of Athenian system of rules. He further explicated the domino effect fleeing from the verdict would initiate and eventually lead to his soul and conscious being ruined. Socrates would rather die and have a clean conscious than to compromise his principles. He defended and dispensed his principles with valid arguments explaining how simply the act of him escaping from his execution would undermine the
The laws say it would be wrong for Socrates to take the opportunity that had been arranged by his friends and violate the verdict. The first argumentative question brought up by the laws was: what happens if any individual that wants to set aside verdicts does as they please? If Socrates does so, and more than one person does it as well, then it contributes to destroying the laws and legal framework, the legal frameworks that other subjects and the society have to abide by, which would create chaos and disorder in the city. The state itself can be weakened by unjust law (Simmons, Discussion). By making an exception for himself, Socrates would be indirectly attacking the city, therefore, making political order more difficult to achieve …show more content…
Socrates put himself under the city of Athens by not leaving after so many years, and by doing so, he reaffirmed his acceptance of Athenian system of rules. He further explicated the domino effect fleeing from the verdict would initiate and eventually lead to his soul and conscious being ruined. Socrates would rather die and have a clean conscious than to compromise his principles. He defended and dispensed his principles with valid arguments explaining how simply the act of him escaping from his execution would undermine the