Argument in the Apology and in the Crito

1. The Apology. Note that the whole structure of this defense is to deal with a political and social order that has lost its foundations. The traditional basis of the polis had been challenged by the intellectual revolution; the war had undermined public morality. A new basis for morality had to be established, but one based on the rational principles of the intellectual revolution.
   1. Original charge:"Socrates is wicked; overdoes inquiry in what occurs below the earth and in the heavens; in arguing makes the worse case win; and teaches others to do the same as he."
   2. Formal accusation: "...offends against the law since he corrupts the young; does not believe in the gods of the state, believes in novel dieties instead." Thereby it is assumed that the gods will punish Athens collectively.
   3. Real cause: public and politicians do not like to be embarrassed by having to admit how little they know.
   4. His mission: the oracle; who is the wisest of men? If it is true it is because Socrates admits he knows nothing; but he has a duty to the god, to Athenians and to himself to pursue this quest for the truth even if it offends. Cf. the role of the prophets in the OT.
2. The argument of the Crito. Confronted with the opportunity to escape Athens and execution, Socrates argues that he must obey the law, even when the law is a "bad" one.
   1. the first argument
      • a just man cannot harm anyone or anything
      • to violate the laws harms the state
      • therefore, the just man may not violate the laws
   2. the second argument
      • we have freely entered into a contract with the state and its laws; we may try to change the laws, but must necessarily abide by such as are in force.