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,

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

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,”