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. In the Euthyphro, Socrates is making his way into the courthouse; however, prior to entering he had a discussion with a young priest of Athens, Euthyphro. This dialogue relates religion and justice to one another and the manner in which they correlate. Euthyphro feels as though justice necessitates religion and Socrates feels the opposite, religion necessitates justice. Euthyphro claims that religion is everything, justice, habits, traditions, customs, cultures, etc. all are derived from religion. Socrates went on to question what exactly would be the definition of pious. Euthyphro offered Socrates three definitions of pious and in all three Socrates was able to successfully find fault... ... middle of paper ... ...ur trials and manage the city in other ways, has in fact come to an agreement with us to obey our instructions (63e). If the decisions of the city’s governing agents are not thoroughly respected as just and cohesive parts of society, the very structure by which the society stands is subject to collapse. 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.
Socrates lived in a political system. In order for someone to survive in a political system, it is helpful to obey the laws of the system, or city. Did Socrates follow these laws? According to the facts, no. He was indeed put to death because he broke them. But when looking at Crito, I wonder if he even intended or noticed the laws he broke to deserve him death. In Crito, Socrates follows the laws and does not escape, as recommended. If he was such a criminal to deserve death, why didn't he escape? Socrates viewed the laws with his own reference. It is obvious that he does not see any law being broken such as corrupting the youth. If he did see this crime take place I think he would not of defended himself. Socrates was a proud man, even though he did not sho...
In the book of Apology, Socrates was mistakenly accused, and the accusation went as follows: "Socrates is an evil-doer who corrupts the youth, and who does not believe in the gods whom the city believes in, but in other new divinities"(Plato 9). During the trial, he denied all the accusations. He denied the would-be corruption of the youth and disclaimed his alleged disbelief in the gods of the Athenian state. However, he was still put in prison unjustly because the elaw had been incorrectly applied. Crito was a book after Apology. It was a dialogue from the main characters Socrates and his friend Crito. The main theme of the book of Crito is about whether Socrates should break the law and escape from execution, or stay and accept his death
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.
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?
Plato’s dialogues on the trial and death of Socrates demonstrate the innocence that Plato sees in Socrates in defense against his old accusers. Plato covers this issue in Euthyphro and The Apology, both of which provide insight into Socrates defense. The charge from the old accusers that Socrates defends against is, in the most general terms, that he does injustice and is meddlesome (19b-c, p. 66). Within that general charge, Socrates is specifically charged with investigating things under the Earth and heavenly things, making the weaker speech the stronger, and with teaching others these same things (19b-c, p. 66). Between the Euthyphro and The Apology, Socrates thoroughly establishes his defense and proves he is not guilty of any of those accusations.
When Socrates asks Euthyphro to define the word pious he dodges the question and rather gives an explanation of what being pious is. Socrates is trying to figure out if it was a good thing for Euthyphro to turn in his own father. Euthyphro then says that any of the gods won’t care if they (humans) care for them. And with that said that would mean “pious is pious because it’s loved by the gods” (Prompt). It won’t matter if a citizen worships the gods or if they do what is right or wrong; in the end, the gods aren’t affected by it at all. Turning, Euthyphro’s father in is wrong for the reason that the gods don’t care what he did, because it doesn’t affect them. If Euthyphro would have kept the secret about his father, then Euthyphro could’ve protected him and lied for his father because it’s his father. The majority of people would say it was morally wrong to turn in their fathers, because it’s their fathers and they could protect them. If he actually loved him, then he wouldn’t have done that. But since, he did do it, then that would mean that he cares for the law much
While he fails to convince the Athenian jury of his innocence, he does a wonderful job in this effort. I personally believe that Socrates is innocent, and that the Athenian jury made the wrong decision. Socrates was accused of being a sophist, a professional philosopher. Sophists were seen as corrupters of society and as generally bad men. Socrates says that every one of these accusations is false.
Therefore, to keep all of Socrates claims and arguments from contradicting, we must look at the agreements of Socrates accepting the punishment of death and the intent of Socrates to disobey the order to stop practicing philosophy separately. In both cases Socrates, as a citizen of Athens has agreed to do one of the three things listed earlier, stayed in Athens, and failed to persuade the Athenian Laws. Therefore, the only option left to avoid wronging the Athenian Laws would be to obey their orders. However, in the case in which Socrates was ordered by the Laws to stop practicing philosophy, he is willing to disobey. This allows two options, either Socrates is going against his own moral standards of not wronging another, or this agreement is somehow an unjust agreement. Assuming that Socrates is true to all his claims he would not wrong another under any circumstances. This leaves the agreement to obey the orders of the Athenian Laws to stop practicing philosophy as an unjust agreement.
Though Socrates has been unjustly incarcerated, he refuses to escape due to his implied agreement with the Athenian legal system. This paper serves to argue that Socrates’ line of reasoning to Crito does not properly address actions committed under an unjust legal system.
Throughout the events of the trial, both sides were quite hypocritical, although Socrates willingly became hypocritical in order to expose the hypocrisy of the government. Throughout the trial, Socrates did not deny the accusations exactly , because he actually wanted to be convicted. We can also see this in Socrates’ dialogues with his accusers. He made them talk and answer his questions which most of them were not exactly questions. His questions were as if they were answers. These are all the proofs of what he wanted to do in the trial.
Socrates starts his defense by addressing the jury and telling them that his accusers had a prepared speech, while Socrates' speech will be completely improvised. Socrates continued to further disassociate himself from the opponents by telling the jury to forgive him for his conversational tone in his speech, for that's how he best speaks. He also asks the jury to keep an open mind and not concentrate on how his defense is delivered, but the substance of his defense. Socrates tells the jury that he is not a sophist. Sophists were known for charging fees for their work, and Socrates does not charge a fee for his words. His next decides to cross-examine Meletus. Basically Socrates turns the tables on his accuser and accuses Meletus of "dealing frivolously with serious matters." Socrates says that the youth he supposedly corrupts follows him around on their own free will, because the young men enjoy hearing people and things being questioned. In this line of questioning of Meletus, Socrates makes him look very contradictory to his statements in his affidavit. Socrates then moves on to the second part of his defense. Moving on to the second charge that he does not believe in the Gods accepted ...
As Socrates continues his argument, he says that he would have been gone if he went into politics. Instead, he lived a private life where he talked with only a few people rather than the many. He does not want to be involved with the many, rather individuals. He then continues to restate that he never charged a fee to talk with people and has not refused to talk with someone. The reason why people want to talk to him is to find out what is just and unjust and finding if people have knowledge or not. Finally, Socrates says that he did not want to suck up to the court. He could have traditionally begged, cried, or mentioned family members to gain sympathy, but he did not. This would not be right for him because it would be embarrassing, this
Having in mind all theses accusations Socrates, should had defend himself better but that was not the case. Throughout the trial, he acted as though he wanted to lose the case. He went out of his way to antagonize the jury, making comments that associated himself with certain people and ideas that were offensive to the jury.
...to make its final decision, Socrates was given the death penalty. However, because this man had faced death many times before, he was not fearful of his fate. He believed that it would be good for him because the internal oracle had given no sign of opposition. And so, Socrates was put to death for the violations he had committed. Because Socrates was able to maintain his composure throughout the trial, and was able to truthfully discuss his tactics with the court even though it went against the common practices of the ancient world, I feel that he was a very honorable man. Even at the brink of death, Socrates did not modify his defense to what he thought the court would want to hear. He did not apologize for his way of thinking or for the way he went about doing things, but he, essentially, apologized for the fact that others were unable to understand his virtues.
...ns. Why would he do this if he did not see the laws of Athens as just? In order to fulfill the agreement he has made with Athenian law, Socrates must accept the punishment he is given, though he feels that his being punished is Athens wronging him. It would be wrong, by his view, to escape from prison, though he would not be pursued, because he would be breaking his agreement to obey Athenian law. Since he and Crito previously agreed that one must never do wrong, he simply must stay in jail until his death. This is merely one example of the way in which Socrates uses a method of logical dialogue in order to make his point. He appears to be unmatched in his skills of deduction and consistently demonstrates his love of knowledge and truth. Socrates exemplifies all that is philosophy, both as a student and a teacher, because of his constant, active pursuit of wisdom.