Question: Socrates argues in the Apology that if he were put in the position of having to choose between obeying the authority of the laws and the authority of god, he would be right to choose the authority of god

Athens' personified Laws meet Socrates and challenge his prospective choice to leave the city. Disobedience is a threat to the legal system, according to Plato, since it reflects an attitude of scorn for the authority of the law. The 'destructive impact' concept seems to be especially strong in Athens, where individuals' relationships with the law are close to their hearts and minds. It is possible for every legal system to assert that individuals' proclivity to transgress the law is a source of concern. In Crito, Socrates asks whether it is better to honor an agreement or cheat on it.

In accordance with the Laws, Socrates reached an agreement "without coercion or deception" (Crito 52d-e). Citizens are bound to abide by the terms of the agreement so long as the agreement is fair. By refusing to follow, Socrates would be behaving unjustly against his fellow citizens who support the dictatorship by abiding by the rules of the land. Only via such collaboration will Athenians be able to take use of the scheme's advantages. Fairness principles are used in order to establish legitimacy of citizens' obligations of obedience.

Some thinkers support an attachment to the rule of law based on filial piety and obligation (see e.g., Walker 1989: 364). Citizens have no option but to comply with the law. No matter how aggressively the state assaults its own inhabitants, counterattack and resistance remain incomprehensible. The Laws of Athens extol the freedom provided to people who desire to leave. Socrates' dedication to the rule of law originates primarily from his devotion to democracy. Athenians have the opportunity to engage in decision-making processes and influence political results as a result of their democratic citizenship.

Dear student, everything you asked for is already provided and explained below in full details. Should you have any more question and clarification about my answer, please leave a comment so I can answer them.

Step-by-step explanation

Athens' personified Laws (nomoi kai to koinon tis poleos) meet Socrates and challenge his prospective choice to leave the city, which Socrates interprets as a challenge to his morality. 3rd footnote The fact that Socrates is acting as a surrogate for every Athenian citizen should not be overlooked in this imaginary interaction. When it comes to Socrates' particular position within the Athenian system, the Laws' speech is mostly composed of arguments couched in general terms with only occasional references to Socrates' own distinctive (and atypical) position within the Athenian system (see Crito 52a-b for claims that are specifically directed at Socrates' particular position). It is not by chance that this is the case. Once again, what is at issue here are fundamentally sound reasons for (or against) obeying the law (Crito 46b, 48c-d). Instead than making a specific demand for Socrates' allegiance, the Laws attempt to explain why all democratic citizens who are presented with an unfair political decision have a prima facie obligation to abide by the conclusion. As a result of the speech's abstract breadth, we may derive criteria for legitimacy from it, which can subsequently be used to explain people' commitments to the rule of law.

Disobedience, on the other hand, is a threat to the legal system, according to Plato, since it reflects a widespread attitude of scorn for the authority of the law. In addition to corrupting young and the stupid, those who demolish laws defy authority and set negative examples, so driving further lawbreaking to occur (Crito 53c). 5th footnote Obedience becomes imperative in the face of such negative repercussions. A legal system loses efficacy if individuals believe that their responsibility to follow is weak and easily countered; citizens' respect for the law erodes, resulting in the proliferation of illegal behavior throughout society. The Laws' condemnation of disobedience serves as a warning to anyone who would violate them. When people fail to recognize that choices made via otherwise valid processes impose significant obligations of compliance on them, the rule of law is damaged. A same warning applies to modern societies: if disobedience is associated with a diminished feeling of law-abidingness, the authority and stability of the legal system are jeopardized. 

The 'destructive impact' concept seems to be especially strong in Athens, where individuals' relationships with the law are close to their hearts and minds. While formalized legislation is included in Nomos, so are customs and traditions, implying an increased level of social cohesiveness in the society as a whole (Heinze 2016: 117; 2018: 121). Disobedience corrodes nomos at the price of collective spirit, undermining the relationships that bind people together in their communities. The whole normative framework of a polis is jeopardized when citizens show disregard for the rules of the game. Such relationships, it is said, are missing in current communities, which have a lesser level of social cohesiveness than they used to. However, the overall idea remains. It is possible for every legal system to assert that individuals' proclivity to transgress the law is a source of concern.

In any case, consequential arguments are unlikely to provide convincing grounds in favor of or against disobedience in the first place. The notion that even innocuous, harmless lawbreaking undermines the legal order is implausible (see, for example, Raz 1979: 238-241; Finnis 2011: 361). Although societies should be concerned with legal violations, the notion that even innocuous, harmless lawbreaking undermines the legal order is implausible (see, for example, Raz 1979: 238-241; Finnis 2011: 361). In addition, if not all forms of disobedience are equally detrimental to the legal system, then a universal obligation to comply cannot be justified purely on the basis of the 'destructive impact' hypothesis. Despite the fact that that thesis supports Socrates' opinion that breaching the law is wrong, it does not, on its own, create philosophical arguments against disobedience of the law.

The personified Laws thus refer to the people' consent to abide by the laws of their own polis. They remind Socrates of his commitment: 'the agreement between us, Socrates,... [was] to respect the judgements... [of] the city' (Socrates' promise to respect the judgments of the city) (Crito 50c). 9th footnote The Laws, by depicting tacit acceptance to a basic bargain as producing a responsibility to comply, lay a strong claim on the loyalty of people. Given the presumption that it is ethically acceptable to honor one's agreement, people are required to abide by democratic laws. It is necessary to carry out a fair arrangement. Asked by Crito if it is better to honor a reasonable agreement with someone, Socrates responds by asking whether it is better to fulfill the agreement or cheat on it. (From Crito 49e) Further difficulties are raised by the proviso of justice (see, for example, Kraut 1984: 29-32). Footnote 10 Does Socrates imply that an agreement is only legally enforceable if the substance of the agreement is just? It might also be an issue of the fairness of the circumstances under which the agreement was formed, that is, without the use of coercion or pressure. The latter explanation is more reasonable in light of the subsequent focus on the agreement's conditions. In accordance with the Laws, Socrates reached an agreement "without coercion or deception" (Crito 52d-e). Citizens are bound to abide by the terms of the agreement so long as the agreement is fair in its procedural elements. An otherwise valid contract cannot be broken on the basis of disadvantage alone, as is the case in most jurisdictions. On the other hand, since he has been convicted, Socrates cannot break his agreement with the state merely because of his conviction. The processes are legal, and the agreement should be respected.

The bestowed advantages, like as education, are contingent on a tacit, reciprocal agreement between the parties. Citizens accept them as long as they comply with the law (for more more on the law's facilitative and educational functions, see, for example, Apology 24e, Politics, 1266b30, 1287a15-30, 1310a12-23, 7.17, and Hart 2012: 26-49). They must, in the interests of justice, subject to the law after having benefited from it. Fairness principles are often used in order to establish the legitimacy of citizens' obligations of obedience. It is the responsibility of participants who profit from the compliance of other members to uphold the norms of the system (Hart 1955: 185; Rawls 1964: 9-10) in cooperative companies that administer benefits (Hart 1955: 185; Rawls 1964: 9-10). 12th footnote Simons (1979: 131-132, 139; Smith 1973: 955-959) provide critique of the work. By refusing to follow, Socrates would be behaving unjustly against his fellow citizens who support the dictatorship by abiding by the rules of the land. Only via such collaboration will Athenians be able to take use of the scheme's advantages. Even if Socrates' disobedience had no direct (or even indirect) influence on the receipt of those advantages by other citizens, it would still be unjust for him to violate the rules of the cooperative business in this manner. 

Because it is the supplier of benefits, the polis plays a paternal role that seems to be devoid of any recalcitrance (Crito 50e-51a). As a result of this comparison between the state and one's parents, some thinkers support an attachment to the rule of law based on filial piety and obligation (see e.g., Walker 1989: 364). Although they acknowledge the importance of thankfulness, the Laws also draw attention to the entrenched power imbalance that exists between the polis as a decision-maker and its people as decision-receivers. In the same way that citizens are "not on an equal footing with [their] father in terms of rights," they are also subject to the authority of the law (Crito 51a). Even more so than one's parents or grandparents, the polis should be regarded with greater reverence and respect than they are themselves (Crito 51a). Citizens have no option but to comply with the law. No matter how aggressively the state assaults its own inhabitants, or 'undertake[s] to destroy [them]', counterattack and resistance remain incomprehensible (Crito 51a). Interestingly, individuals who are subjected to the polis's oppressive control are compared to slaves who are compelled to live under the authority of a master. Footnote 14 Just as slaves must endure whatever their masters order, citizens must always submit to the decisions of the city.

When the first mention of democratic citizenship and the options people have to persuade others about proposed legislation is made, this dogmatic viewpoint is only somewhat loosened up (Crito 51b-c). Instead of restricting residents' freedom, the legal system in Athens actually makes a wide range of options available to them. Every fully-fledged citizen has the 'option, after he or she has reached voting age and has observed the operations of the city and made use of the laws....[to] take his or her property and travel anywhere he or she wishes,' according to the Constitution (Crito 51c-e). The Laws of Athens extol the freedom provided to people who desire to leave, and they portray participation in Athenian politics as a matter of personal choice. Without a doubt, it is debatable whether the option of leaving one's home state is ever viable, or indeed was in the case of the Athenians, due to the enormous costs associated with the dissolution of deep family ties and friendships that are typically associated with the exit option (See, for example, Kirkpatrick 2015). Hume (1994: 193), Simmons (1979: 3-4), and Dworkin (1998) all make similar points.

In any case, the paragraph also emphasizes Socrates' unusual reluctance to leave the city of Athens. Not only did he never leave Athens, with the exception of military duty, but he also declined to ask for the exile sentence during his trial (Crito 52c-53a; Apology, 37e; Crito 51c-e; Crito 51c-e). Socrates, rather than unwillingly following the law, decidedly and clearly relished living under the protection of Athens' democratic institutions (Crito 52b-c). Socrates' dedication to the rule of law, even in the face of the jury's erroneous ruling, originates primarily from his devotion to democracy. Athenians have the opportunity to engage in decision-making processes and influence political results as a result of their democratic citizenship. This kind of opportunity legitimizes the Athenian system and instills broad obligations of allegiance in Socrates (as well as other Athenians).