This argument states Socrates should be bound by the laws and rules of the state due to his agreement to stay within the state. If Socrates had a problem with the rules and laws, then he could have left. Him staying gives implied consent to the social contract to obey the laws within the state. Socrates also mentions that he must be able to persuade the state, or he must obey the state. He was unable to persuade the state so, according to logic, all that is left is to obey the state. If he didn’t persuade the state and did not obey the state then he would become even worse than a slave in the master servant analogy. He would be considered an animal for willfully disobeying the state and thus damn his soul and violate the ethical super
This argument states Socrates should be bound by the laws and rules of the state due to his agreement to stay within the state. If Socrates had a problem with the rules and laws, then he could have left. Him staying gives implied consent to the social contract to obey the laws within the state. Socrates also mentions that he must be able to persuade the state, or he must obey the state. He was unable to persuade the state so, according to logic, all that is left is to obey the state. If he didn’t persuade the state and did not obey the state then he would become even worse than a slave in the master servant analogy. He would be considered an animal for willfully disobeying the state and thus damn his soul and violate the ethical super