Socrates Apology

A Better Apology

It is clear to the reader that Socrates is skilled in rhetorical dialogue. When taken down to their core, his arguments are just and portray confidence, an attribute seen in someone who is well versed in rhetoric. Unfortunately, however, the jurymen, who are tasked in determining Socrates’s fate, reject his arguments and sentence him to death. Socrates’s main fault is that he completely misaddresses his target audience, his argument against his corruption of the youth falls on deaf ears and his entire defense is for naught. In order to analyze Socrates argument, one must first look at any strong points, before pointing out rhetorical flaws of his and proposing alterations to his arguments. Socrates presents three good arguments

Socrates asks Meletus to confirm the truth of a statement he made, but rather than letting him answer says, “Of course it is, whether you…say so or not” (Plato, p. 5). He then goes on to say, “You have made it sufficiently obvious Meletus, that you have never had any concern for our youth; you show your indifference clearly; that you have given no thought to the subjects that which you bring me to trial” (p. 5). Here, Socrates questions Meletus’s authority while using degrading language, a risky move for anyone on trial. Unfortunately for him, his tactics don’t change when arguing his last two points. His second to last argument that “bad company corrupts good character” is shallow and unpersuasive (Plato, p. 5). As a matter of personal opinion, this defense is presented only as fluff and should be omitted altogether. It could be a very rhetorical argument, but as in all of his other arguments, Socrates doesn’t actually defend his statement because he is too preoccupied personally attacking the intelligence of the jury and his accusers, specifically Meletus. Which is clearly the problem with his last argument as well. Here Socrates addresses Meletus saying, “You, however, have avoided my company and were unwilling to instruct

The arguments he provided would have been best used in the presence of Meletus’s enemies, rather than those of his supporters. Socrates basically attempted to put Meletus on trial, and instead he should have focused on providing evidence of why he was not corrupting the youth, especially not willingly. His arguments were not rhetorical because they were not true arguments at all. In order to strengthen his argument, Socrates should have swallowed his pride, accepted partial guilt and given his jurymen actual counteroffers. This humility might have led the jurymen to listen to him and lessen his punishment, rather than merely tuning him out and sentencing him to death in spite, which is what they appeared to have done, and quite honestly what anyone in a similar position might have