Explain why it is, according to Socrates' reasoning (as presented in both the Apology and the Crito) that as a good man he is constrained to accept the outcome of his trial which leads to his execution.
Socrates argues, both in the Apology and the Crito that he is bound to accept the verdict imposed by his peers, and follow through with whatever punishment is imposed. We might wonder at his willingness to do so, especially when we learn in the Apology that his punishment is death, that it is not a just verdict. In the Crito, he is offered the chance to escape - in fact, he is encouraged to do so even by those who have condemned him.
For Socrates, however, consistency between word and action is of paramount importance. Right next to that consistency is the esteem ...
The solution provides a detailed argument/explanation of the reasoning Socrates used to defend the idea that to be true to his nature - that is, of a good man - he is constrained to accept whatever the outcome of his trial is, that one raised by the Athenian politicians & leaders, despite the fact that such an outcome would lead to his eventual execution/death.