Are Socrates' positions in the Crito and Apology consistent?

Are Socrates' positions in the Crito and Apology consistent?

Introduction

In the Apology, Socrates recalls how he did not obey the unfair ruling of the Thirty Tyrants to arrest a fellow citizen. In addition to this, he also claims that he will not stop his philosophical works, with no regard to the legal orders of the government. But in Crito Socrates gives many arguments for agreeing to the decision of the legal constitution of the political power. The decision to sentence Socrates to death was not fair. Crito is a short dialogue by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato. It encompasses a conversation between Socrates and his friend Crito. Apology is a speech depicted by Plato of Socrates in defense of himself.

Discussion

In Crito and Apology the arguments of Socrates are put forward clearly and briefly by Plato. The accusations and line of reasoning developed in the Crito consequently lead to the inference that if a person fails to convince the government, then one must follow the law of the land thoroughly (Morall, 1984, p.510). Being a citizen of Athens, who had the freedom and rights of being the citizen, Socrates entered into an accord of submission in return for these civil liberties. Crito emphasizes the process of denial, discussion and reason however the compliance to the state is supreme. Socrates recognizes and honors this as just. In Apology, Socrates warns to not accept a court order to stop his philosophy work. Socrates makes a pledge to not follow the order of the Athenian jury, lawfully or unlawfully, if it stops him from doing his philosophical works. The first position highlights and stands firm on complying, the other position states non compliance directly. Socrates position in Crito and Apology are conflicting, opposing and are disjointed.

The first claim in Crito about the moral duty of the state is mentioned in the 51b of the Crito. Socrates says that because the state has the duty to provide security, education and basic necessities, the citizens are the “offspring and servant” of the state. From this point he concludes that if a person ever violates the law, he must “either persuade it or obey it order,” even if it means death. In his case in the apology, Socrates tries to convince the court of his purity and unjust execution. Socrates had failed and he argues that now he must follow the order of the court and accept death, although he still stands firm on the belief that he is right.

The second claim in the later parts Socrates claims that by default, a citizen is in contract with accepting the orders of the state. Again the claim is that a citizen who does not follow the law must either influence others that it is wrong or else accept it. This is in line with Socrates statement “either persuades us or does what we say”. The premise here is that if a citizen is not able to convince the government ...