More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on socrates trial
Trial and death of socrates critical summary
Trial and death of socrates critical summary
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Is Socrates Innocent or Guilty?
Living in a democracy, everyone is exposed through television and other various forms of media everyday to numerous trials by jury. Usually they are rarely given a second thought, but every once in a while along comes a specific trial which captures the attention of the entire country. This goes the same for trials throughout centuries in our past. Although they did not have the same forms of media as in this, modern era, there were still specific trials in which everyone knew about. One trial that stands out is the one against the great philosopher Socrates. Accused of corrupting the youth, being an atheist, and believing in other gods, Socrates faced trial by jury. The early forms of democracy were not as sophisticated and complex as they are now. The outcome of the trial was that Socrates was found guilty and sentenced to be put to death by hemlock poisoning. The question is whether Socrates was truly guilty or just another person fallen to the early form of democracy of a people who were possibly jealous and afraid of Socrates. However, by understanding Socrates intentions, it is clear that he was in fact innocent of the above charges, and was wrongly accused and executed.
Socrates was executed after a trial in which he was accused of corrupting the youths of Athens, and committing acts of impiety. These accusations were brought to the court by a small group of men. Meletus was the speaker representing the group of accusers, while Socrates defended himself. The jury of 501 Athenians voted to execute Socrates on these accusations, but this extreme outcome was not planned out (Stone 78). The initial object of the trial was to get Socrates out of Athens, and he would just move a...
... middle of paper ...
...There is one charge he hasn't really faced, that of making the weaker argument the stronger. That is he just questioned peoples arguments, no matter how strong they were compared to his own. In essence he made fools of powerful and knowledgeable people for sport. Perhaps this overshadowed aspect of the charges is true after all.
Bibliography:
Works Cited
Brickhouse, Thomas C. Socrates On Trial. Princeton University Press, Princeton: 1989.
Plato. Five Dialogues. Hackett, Indianapolis: 1981.
Reeve, C. D. C. Socrates in the Apology: An Essay on Plato's Apology of Socrates. Hackett, Indianapolis: 1989.
Stone, Isidor. F. The Trial of Socrates. Little Brown, Boston: 1988.
Xenophon. Recollections of Socrates, and: Socrates' Defense Before the Jury. Collier Macmillan, New York: 1965.
Ever since human civilization came into existence, people have been putting rules in place to determine who is behaving according to social norms and moral values and who is not. Because the majority of Western societies have historically been democratic, it makes sense that the public have a say in the enforcement of said rules. It is for this reason that the trial became a popular means of deciding upon punishment for those perceived to have broken the law, while also allowing them an opportunity to testify against their charges. Socrates underwent this process in 399 BC on charges of impiety and corruption of the youth of Athens , as did Louis Riel in 1885 on charges of treason for leading a Métis rebellion . Although they lived during vastly
Socrates defense at his trial was not strong enough to convince the Athenians to set him free of all charges. He was not prepared properly for his defense; yet, he managed to convince a large majority of the judges to find him not guilty of charges, but not enough to send him free.
O men of Athens! After we have heard the accusers, whom said that Socrates corrupts the youth by criticising democracy and does not believe in gods, and makes the worse appear the better cause. (Apology, Plato) I beg you to grant me a favor, please listen to a few words from me before making this decision.
For every teacher one may have, there is always a wiser teacher. Socrates is the wisest teacher in the city-state of Athens. A man who has been teaching his wise ways of questioning to students for over 25 years in the Agora is Socrates. Having been known as an adept to questioning, many adolescents and adults sought direction by Socrates. However, people have created accusations against Socrates such as not believing in the gods. Why put Socrates on trial now? At Socrates's trial, both the defense and prosecution have provided strong evidence, but the prosecution was not as strong as the defense. From the defense side, you'd hear from Plato, who is Socrates's most notable student, Crito, who is a lifelong friend of Socrates, and finally Aristophanes,
Socrates, in his conviction from the Athenian jury, was both innocent and guilty as charged. In Plato’s Five Dialogues, accounts of events ranging from just prior to Socrates’ entry into the courthouse up until his mouthful of hemlock, both points are represented. Socrates’ in dealing with moral law was not guilty of the crimes he was accused of by Meletus. Socrates was only guilty as charged because his peers had concluded him as such. The laws didn’t find Socrates guilty; Socrates was guilty because his jurors enforced the laws. The law couldn’t enforce itself. Socrates was accused of corrupting Athens’ youth, not believing in the gods of the city and creating his own gods. In the Euthyphro, Socrates defends himself against the blasphemous charges outside the courthouse to a priest Euthyphro. Socrates looks to the priest to tell him what exactly is pious so that he may educate himself as to why he would be perceived as impious. Found in the Apology, another of Plato’s Five Dialogues, Socrates aims to defend his principles to the five hundred and one person jury. Finally, the Crito, an account of Socrates’ final discussion with his good friend Crito, Socrates is offered an opportunity to escape the prison and his death sentence. As is known, Socrates rejected the suggestion. It is in the Euthyphro and the Apology that it can be deduced that Socrates is not guilty as charged, he had done nothing wrong and he properly defended himself. However, in the Crito, it is shown that Socrates is guilty only in the interpretation and enforcement of Athens’ laws through the court system and its jurors. Socrates’ accusations of being blasphemous are also seen as being treasonous.
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.
There are times in every mans life where our actions and beliefs collide—these collisions are known as contradictions. There are endless instances in which we are so determined to make a point that we resort to using absurd overstatements, demeaning language, and false accusations in our arguments. This tendency to contradict ourselves often questions our character and morals. Similarly, in The Trial of Socrates (Plato’s Apology), Meletus’ fallacies in reason and his eventual mistake of contradicting himself will clear the accusations placed on Socrates. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates is not guilty of corrupting the youth with the idea of not believing in the Gods but of teaching the youth to think for themselves by looking to new divinities.
Upon reading Plato, The Trial and Death of Socrates, Socrates strongly held views on the relationship between morality and laws become apparent to the reader. Equally, Socrates makes clear why laws should be followed and why disobedience to the law is rarely justified.
The trial of Socrates in Athens is both similar and different from the trial of Jesus of Nazareth. The trials could be compared in three main areas: the evidence and reasons provided for their executions, their last messages to their accusers, and the two leaders’ thoughts about their impending deaths. For both figures, there is no evidence to support their convictions and they are convicted for similar reasons, though Jesus is given less time to defend himself. Both Jesus and Socrates warn their accusers that they will suffer for their actions. However, Jesus views his accusers as ignorant and Socrates views his as vengeful. Both men conclude that it is G-d’s will for them to die. However, Socrates is more secure about death than Jesus. Despite the differences that exist between the two trials, Socrates and Jesus face similar predicaments and deal with death in comparable ways.
In the retelling of his trial by his associate, Plato, entitled “The Apology”; Socrates claims in his defense that he only wishes to do good for the polis. I believe that Socrates was innocent of the accusations that were made against him, but he possessed contempt for the court and displayed that in his conceitedness and these actions led to his death.
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...
that it is because of the gods that things are as they seem to be. "Do you
The charges against Socrates were brought upon him by a man names Meletus. Meletus was a young man that Socrates did not know very well. These charges brought on by Meletus caused the indictment of Socrates. One of the charges in the affidavit written by Meletus against Socrates is that he is "corrupting the youth." Another charge that is brought upon Socrates is that of he is making up new Gods and disregarding the old Gods the Athenians believe in. These were the charges brought on Socrates.
Socrates is not guilty. He is a great man and always will be. He has many great views and opinions on the world and is a great thinker who questions everything. Socrates is on trial for being an enemy of the state with the charges that he is a threat to the democracy, a threat to society, and a threat to Athenian culture. As a farmer I want Socrates to be found not guilty because he is not corrupt, he is trying to start a new government, and he wants people to question everything. He is a patriot, not guilty of any of the accusations that the Democrats brought up. In this paper I will explain why Socrates is innocent of these charges.
It is very hard to believe that the people who charged Socrates of these "Crimes" more than likely did not even understand what Socrates was talking about. So to think that they were considered to be in a place well above Socrates socially and able to sentence him to death should discredit their claims. During the trial Socrates often notes how you cannot define Piety. The charge of "Impiety" coming from Ancient Greece does make sense in the fact that the Greek people believed to be protected by the gods and they did not want to do anything to disrupt that. However the point that times are different today is valid in the sense that back then, the purpose of democracy was to serve to the good of all common people, however I still feel he was doing nothing "harmful" enough to be sentenced to death. I do believe he was used as an example to demonstrate the message of not challenging the status quo or this will