Gentlemen of the jury, I appear before you today to plead the case of the defendant, Socrates, a man I believe to be innocent of the charge of corruption. This charge, as I see it, defines corruption as the use of questioning the Athenian democracy and the rule of the majority in order to undermine these practices. While this questioning can certainly be interpreted as anti-democratic by some, Socrates does not encourage citizens to challenge the democracy of the only city he has ever known, rather, he attempts to strengthen their beliefs in the state. The plaintiff, Meletus, has charged Socrates with corruption, and while I cannot prove absolutely that his questioning does not corrupt, I believe that there exists sufficient evidence to disprove
Socrates acts in a manner different from other teachers and thinkers. He is “the kind of man who listens to nothing within [himself] but the argument that on reflection seems the best to [him]” (Plato, The Crito, §46b). If the defendant himself advocates for listening to all arguments and reflecting within himself to determine which is the best, how can one say he knowingly corrupts and undermines the democracy? In questioning and advocating for reflection, these questions do not lead his listeners to corruption, but rather allow them to reach their own conclusions. Socrates does not speak against the democracy. He simply encourages examination rather than passive acceptance of its practices. Well founded beliefs and knowledge of the democracy are essential to its longevity and effectiveness. By encouraging citizens to identify the basis of their faith in the democracy, Socrates acts with the intention of strengthening not only the beliefs of the citizens, but the democracy itself. In the case of the trial of “ten generals who had failed to pick up the survivors of the naval battle”(Plato, The Apology, §32b), Socrates alone stood as staunch opposition when the generals were tried as a body. Though the majority overruled
As a result of his reflection however, he places more value on the opinion of “he who understands justice and injustice”( (Plato, The Crito, §48a). Through his questioning and encouragement of examination, the defendant does not attempt to undermine the majority, but rather believes that the opinions of examined men carry more weight than those of a simple majority. This does not, however, prove Socrates’ innocence completely. As I see it, the greatest display of the defendant’s commitment to upholding the democracy and the majority rule is his strict adherence to the laws of Athens. In the aforementioned case of the ten generals, Socrates opposed the majority in court advocating for the legal cause, but when a verdict was reached he accepted it. Further, Socrates strengthened the institution of the majority rule when he refused to flee to save his own life. Regardless of the value Socrates places on the opinion of the majority, his actions uphold the central values of the democracy in obeying it, even when faced with death. These actions outweigh his criticism of the majority. Thus, the plaintiffs charges of corruption are unfounded and the defendant is innocent, even upon questioning the majority rule the defendant remains loyal to the law, and this example carries to his followers as
Socrates was indicted to a court of law on the charges of impiety, and the corruption of the youth of Athens. Three different men brought these charges upon Socrates. These men represented those that Socrates examined in his search to find out if the Delphic Mission was true. In that search he found that none of the men that promoted what they believed that they knew was true was in fact completely false. This made those men so angry that they band together and indicted Socrates on the charges of impiety and the corruption of the youth. Socrates then went to court and did what he could to refute the charges that were brought against him.
Ancient Athens was the site of a growing culture. Philosophy was among the many improvements and discoveries being made. With these improvements and discoveries, great thinkers were able to stretch out their knowledge to new heights. The society they lived in, both welcomed and shunned their ideals. Socrates was one of these thinkers. It was because of Socrates open-mindedness that he was sentenced to death by two charges brought against him. One, Socrates corrupted the youth and two, Socrates believed in ‘false gods’. Yet, was Socrates guilty or not?
In Plato’s The Republic, we, the readers, are presented with two characters that have opposing views on a simple, yet elusive question: what is justice? In this paper, I will explain Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, as well as Socrates’s rebuttals and differences in opinion. In addition, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus, and offer critical commentary and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument at hand.
When Socrates posited the idea that the laws and citizens work together synergistically, was this not broken when Socrates was unjustly convicted of a crime? The logic of Socrates would hold that one should act in accordance with just laws, but when the legal system becomes unjust, one is not required to follow the laws. The only alternative to abiding the law is to expatriate or persuade the government, so one would think that Socrates would find the code of law not worth adhering to after it was proven unjust through his trial especially after dismissing the wisdom of public opinion. The tacit agreement of the citizen to the system of laws is also a point to be disputed. An individual’s inhabitance of an area does not suppose that he has extensive legal knowledge of his place of residence. For a legal code to be truly just, the citizens must be aware of all possible infractions and physically indicate their subscription to them. If a citizen were unknowingly to commit a crime, how could he be justly held accountable? Socrates should not be held accountable for his crime unless he consciously agreed to the laws and understood his action was illegal before it was
Socrates was not guilty as charged; he had done nothing wrong, as seen in the Apology. Not even a priest could tell Socrates what he had done wrong religiously, Euthyphro wasn’t even able to give Socrates a precise definition of piety. It is then questioned by Crito why Socrates would remain to face a penalty for a crime he did not commit. In the Crito, it is explained why, although innocent, Socrates must accept the penalties his peers have set upon him. It is his peers that will interpret and enforce the laws, not the law which will enforce it. Even if the enforcers don’t deserve attention and respect because they have no real knowledge to the situation, Socrates had put himself under their judgment by going to the trial. Therefore, Socrates must respect the decisions made by the masses because the decisions are made to represent the laws, which demand each citizen’s respect.
In Plato’s Apology, when Socrates is pleading his defence, he makes a good argument against the charges of corrupting the youth of Athens. This is evident when he states that, firstly, Meletus, the man who is trying to get Socrates executed, has never cared about the youth of Athens and has no real knowledge on the subject. Secondly, Socrates states that if he was in some way corrupting the youth, then he was doing it unintentionally or unwillingly, in which case he was brought to court for no reason. Finally, Socrates brings to light the fact that Meletus doesn’t have a single witness to attest to Socrates’ corruption. This is how Socrates proves his argument that he isn’t responsible for corrupting the youth of Athens.
Socrates refuses to disobey the law. He believes in the correctness of the cities laws. He believes it is never right to act unjustly. He thinks that if you do not agree with the laws of the area that you are living at, then to leave and go somewhere else. He argues that the government could be seen as “his parents, also those who brought him up,” (Crito, 51e), since he has lived there his entire life and when you live somewhere for so long you should “persuade us or to do what we say,” (Crito, 52a) or leave. Socrates tells Crito that
The argument in Plato’s Apology is that one should never betray one’s values for any reason, even if the reason is death. This statement is the basis of everything Socrates states during the trial. Values is also his reasoning for himself and for the jury. Socrates makes a promise to the jury that he will never stop philosophizing even it mean disobeying the court. This standpoint emphasizes and underlines obedience. The people before Socrates are considered influential Athenians. These wrong doings Socrate is accused of includes not recognizing the gods, inventing new gods, and corrupting the youth of Athens. During the trial of Socrates, the court addresses issues such as his views on death. Socrates proposed that death was ultimately a good thing. Socrates states that there were two outcomes of death. Either through dying, one has no longer any awareness of anything. In Socrates second outcome of death, one’s soul experiences a transformation and becomes this perfect being. While addressing the jury Socrates ...
The first main argument in support of the thesis is that it is society’s job to educate the youth and Socrates argues that it is impossible for just one man to corrupt the youth. This is the first mistake made by Meletus, as he makes the absurd overstatement that “every Athenian improves and elevates [the youth]; all with the exception of [Socrates],” who alone is their corrupter. Socrates goes on to defend himself by alluding to a horse analogy. Socrates argues that (P1) trainers improve horses, (P2) all others who simply ride horses, injure or corrupt horses, (P3) there are fewer trainers than riders, (P4) therefore, those who corrupt horses are in smaller number than those who ride horses and we can conclude that (C) people are corrupted by a majority rather than a minority. Socrates believes that this analogy to horses must be true of all animals and furthermore, for all people. Socrates utilizes this analogy to point out that Meletus’ overstatement is rather ironic, since according to Meletus all other beings except for the youth in the world are more likely to be corrupted by a majority rather than a minority. For this reason, it is more logical that the youth have been corrupted by a majority like the judges, senators, and the Athenians rather than one man, Socrates. Meletus’ overstatement and inability to defend himself reflects poorly on his character and further gives more authority to Socrates as it seems that Meletus is only arguing for the sake of argument and that he has no true evidence to prove that Socrates is guilty of corrupting the youth.
Socrates, according to Plato challenged the norms of society by questioning life and having others question it as well. He was labeled of “corrupting the youth” and for not believing in the Athenians gods. “Socrates is guilty of corrupting the young, and of not acknowledging the gods the city acknowledges, but new daimonic activities instead.” (The Apology, pp 654) Although, he was cast by being “corrupt”, Socrates had many followers that saw him as a wise man. Socrates trial was made up of thirty jurors, who were later known as “The Thirty.” The “Thirty” really wanted was to silence Socrates, rather than taking his life. However, Socrates did not want to disobey the laws, he did not want to be violated of his right to freedom of speech, nor did he did he want to be undermine his moral position. (The Apology, pp. 647) He stood against injustice acts several times while he was in counsel. “I was the sort...
The subject matter of the “Republic” is the nature of justice and its relation to human existence. Book I of the “republic” contains a critical examination of the nature and virtue of justice. Socrates engages in a dialectic with Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, and Cephalus, a method which leads to the asking and answering of questions which directs to a logical refutation and thus leading to a convincing argument of the true nature of justice. And that is the main function of Book I, to clear the ground of mistaken or inadequate accounts of justice in order to make room for the new theory. Socrates attempts to show that certain beliefs and attitudes of justice and its nature are inadequate or inconsistent, and present a way in which those views about justice are to be overcome.
In any case of law, when considering truth and justice, one must first look at the validity of the court and the system itself. In Socrates' case, the situation is no different. One may be said to be guilty or innocent of any crime, but guilt or innocence is only as valid as the court it is subjected to. Therefore, in considering whether Socrates is guilty or not, it must be kept in mind the norms and standards of Athens at that time, and the validity of his accusers and the crimes he allegedly committed. Is Socrates guilty or innocent of his accusations?
Within the duration of this document, I will be discussing the charges laid against Socrates and how he attempted to refute the charges. One of the reasons why Socrates was arrested was because he was being accused of corrupting the minds of the students he taught. I personally feel that it is almost impossible for one person to corrupt the thoughts and feelings of a whole group of people. Improvement comes from the minority and corruption comes from the majority. Socrates is one man (minority).
...litical figure came close to challenging Socrates' unique philosophical plan. In the Republic, Socrates' ideas of how ignorant a democracy is, is portrayed in the Apology when Socrates' proclamation resulted in death. A democracy is supposed to be about individuality and freedom, however it was contradicted when Socrates was put to death because he had ideas for a better system of ruling. He wanted a ruler to be somebody who would see truth, not shunning certain ideas and keeping others solely because it is not understood. These ideas are portrayed in both excerpts.
The question of morality came up when Socrates and Cephalus were having a conversation about money. Cephalus says someone who has led a bad life will have nightmares and a person who leads a good life will not have such dreams and will be happy. Cephalus says being true and giving things back is morality. Socrates gives an example were you can do something good by not gibing something back. His example was if you borrow a weapon from a friend, and he is sane at the time and at the time you should give it back your friend is insane then you shouldn’t give it back so you can protect him from doing harm which is also good. Cephalus agreed that Socrates was correct that this was doing something good so Socrates said if that is the case than the definition of morality isn’t to tell the truth and give back whatever one has borrowed. Polemarchus interjected saying that morality is to tell the truth and to give back whatever one has borrowed if you believe Simonides. Polemarchus says what Simonides was trying to say was friends owe friends good deeds not bad ones. Socrates responds by saying, what Simonides meant was we give back to people what is appropriate for them, or owed to them. Polemarchus said to be consistent with what I said earlier it has to be the art of giving benefit and harm to friends and enemies respectively. Socrates makes a point that morality only seems to be useful when something is not being used, for example when money needs to be saved.