Corruption Of Socrates Argue In Plato's Apology

In Plato’s Apology, Plato recounts Socrates’ trial held in Athens in 399 B.C.E. Socrates was put on trial on the basis of three charges: corrupting the young, not acknowledging the gods of the city, and acknowledging new daimonic activities. For each of these charges Socrates offers his defense, but is still found guilty and executed. In this paper, I will show how each of Socrates’ refutes provide a convincing argument for his innocence and should have led to his freedom rather than his execution.

The first charge brought against Socrates was that he corrupting the youth. Socrates refutes this charge by bringing to light the erroneous claims of Meletus. Socrates asks Meletus, his accuser, that if he, Socrates, was the corruptor of youth,

then who is it that is the improver? Meletus’ answer is that all Athenians improve the young with the exception of Socrates. Socrates then asks him if the same situation is true of horses. The answer is, of course, that only few can improve horses. Only a number of people hold the skills and knowledge necessary to train horses, similar to how only a few people have the intention and know-how of improving the young. Socrates’ next line of defense for this charge is to argue the case that if he were to intentionally defile the youth, as Meletus says, he would be ignorant in doing so seeing as those with the well-being of the “corrupted youth” in mind would, in return, attempt to harm Socrates.

Socrates says:
If I really do corrupt the young or have corrupted them in the past, surely any of them had recognized when they became older that I’d given them bad advice at some point in their youth, they’d now have come forward themselves to accuse me and seek redress. Or… some of their family members… would remember it now and seek redress. (33d)
He then addresses the jurors, “Let him tell us if he has any such witness.

No, it’s entirely the opposite, gentlemen. You’ll find that they’re all prepared to come to my aid, their corruptor, the one who, Meletus and Anytus claim, is doing harm to their families,” (34a). He ends his argument for this charge by asserting that Meletus is lying and that he, Socrates, is right and just. In my opinion, Socrates’ claims were sound and convincing. He made clear that he had no intention of “corrupting the youth” and that if he had done so unintentionally, family members would have sought retribution. Of course, there were no witnesses for Meletus who were retaliating for any such reason. There were only witnesses ready and willing to aid Socrates, verifying the legitimacy of his .

The second and third charges of unlawful behavior that Socrates is charged with are that he does not acknowledge the gods of the city, but acknowledges new daimonic activities instead. Socrates relies on shaming Meletus’ reasoning and playing on the jury’s ego for this argument. Meletus, when asked, asserts that Socrates does not acknowledge any gods at all due to Socrates’ belief that the sun’s stone and the moon

earth.

Socrates replies, asking in what I feel is an attempt to embarrass Meletus:
“My dear Meletus, do you think it’s Anaxagoras you’re accusing? Are you that contemptuous of the jury? Do you think they’re so illiterate that they don’t know the books of Anaxagoras of Clazomenae are full of such arguments? ... In the name of Zeus, is that really how I seem to you? Do I acknowledge no god at all? … You aren’t at all convincing, Meletus, not even, it seems to me, to yourself,” (26d-e).
Meletus’ answer, however undoes his indictment as Socrates shows.

Meletus claimed that Socrates acknowledges no gods at all, but contradicts himself in the next statement that he acknowledges new, daimonic activities. As Socrates points out, daimons are either gods or of god origin. So how could Socrates believe in daimonic activities if he does not believe in and acknowledge daimons themselves? Socrates says:

“Meletus, you must have written these things to test us or because you were at a loss about what genuine injustice to charge me with. There’s no conceivable way you could persuade any man with even the slightest intelligence that the same person believes in both daimonic activities and gods, and on the contrary, that this same person believes neither in daimons, nor in gods, nor in heroes,”

(27e).
With this statement it is evident that Socrates is basing his defense the jury’s ability to see Meletus’ flawed and contradictory charges. His assertion that Meletus wrote the indictment without having any valid allegations with which to accuse Socrates seems conclusive. Another justification for how Meletus’ claim is preposterous is not only how Socrates said, “By Zeus,” a multitude of times throughout his rebuttal, but how he declares himself a gift from the gods to the Athenians. He states, “This… is what the god orders me to do. And I believe that no greater good for you has ever come about in the city than my service to the god,” (30a). Socrates even tells the jurors that he is not concerned with his fate, but rather theirs in condemning the god’s gift to them and killing a man an innocent man. He argues that all he is guilty of is attempting to persuade the Athenians to turn away from the material world and care about virtue so that their soul may be in the best possible condition. This, he contends, is a divine calling and his poverty is sufficient enough evidence of the matter due to the fact that he was not benefiting monetarily, nor did he have the intention of such, from this way of life. In trying to persuade the Athenians to abandon selfish aims through cross-examination onlookers thought he was wise. Socrates acknowledges this notion and refutes it by asserting that it is the god who wise and used the Oracle of Delphi as a means of conveying the message that human wisdom is worthless and he is wisest due his acceptance that he knows nothing for certain. With these vindications, Socrates confutes the charges brought against by Meletus.