Apology V. Crito

1036 Words5 Pages
When reading the Apology one gets a feel for disobeying the law when the law stands in between of what one believes and what the law states. In the Crito one gets the feel of ethical conduct, to obey the laws, and to endure the blows one has received and accept them regardless of the consequences. The only problem with this is that the sequel contradicts the prequel. In the Apology, Socrates threatens to disobey a court order to cease philosophizing, among other orders. In the Crito, Socrates obeys the orders of the state and doesn’t break out of prison even though he is facing an execution. One might say “did Socrates lose his edge, did he give up because he was condemned to death?” I say that he was caught in his own hypocritical…show more content…
One could refute that while Socrates was given these unjust orders, these orders came from an unjust short lived government, which had a habit of bestowing unjust actions such as these, one could also ask ‘why should Socrates even comply with this new and unjust government? What have they done to benefit Socrates? What patronage has this government given to Socrates? Socrates doesn’t owe them anything so why should he give them anything?’ Well the answer is simple; Socrates didn’t know that this new government was only going to be there for six months, for all he knew this was his new, permanent government, unjust or not he shouldn’t have defied it. He made have not had enough time to make an ‘agreement’ with the new government, but he certainly had an agreement with the country and its people, and yet he still broke it. This clearly shows how Socrates ignored the laws in the Apology. In the Crito, Socrates refuses to escape because he would be defying the laws which he has made and agreement with. Socrates had a chance to brake free, but instead chose to have an imaginary discussion with the Athenian laws. Did Socrates have an epiphany while sleeping in his jail cell? Did he see the error of his ways? Was he a flip flopper? Or perhaps a devil’s advocate? Or even a hypocrite? No, Socrates was simply being Socrates.
Open Document