Socrates' Trial
In 399 B.C., Socrates, a seventy year old man, was brought to trial. He faced several accusations of different sorts. Initially, the court had pronounced Socrates guilty. However, because the law had no penalty ordained for his offense, it was required of Socrates to propose his own penalty, or to take the one suggested by Meletos, the death penalty. When the time had come for Socrates to state his defense, he addressed each of the accusations made against him, one by one, in attempt to absolve himself from wrong doing. The first accusation Socrates chose to contest declared that he was a student of natural philosophy. This meant that Socrates was believed to be one who sought to replace mythical explanations of events in the physical universe with rational and scientific explanations. A religious fundamentalist of the ancient world, on the other hand, adamantly opposed this idea. Meletos, the prosecutor of Socrates, was one of these religious fundamentalists who preferred the literal interpretations of Greek mythology over the logical ones. For example, Meletos would interpret a roll of thunder as an outburst of anger from the great god, Zeus, whereas Socrates would explain it meteorologically. Because of these conflicting interpretations, Socrates was charged with impiety against the gods of the city. Meletos declared that Socrates "sought things under the earth and up in the heavens, and made the weaker argument the stronger". To try to use scientific reason to explain any occurrence during this time period was disregarded, as it showed disrespect to the gods and to the Greek religion. Not only was Socrates condemned for this, but for, later, discussing his discoveries, thoughts, and beliefs with others...
... middle of paper ...
...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.
After having been sentenced to death, Socrates states that there is no good to come out of his death, as he is already of old age and does not have much longer to live anyway (Apology, 38b - c). He also states that by killing him the jury and the accuser have asserted that Socrates is indeed wise (Apology, 38c).
The court ultimately voted against Socrates’ judgement, and gave him the death penalty. Socrates took it in stride, however, because he was willing to die for something that he believed in. Before he is led to jail, Socrates gives a speech to his accusers and those who voted for his death. He tells of his misfortune in being
	Thus, in conclusion I believe that Socrates was correct to disregard the opinion of the majority. Socrates accepts his fate, for this reason alone he is not a coward. Socrates disagrees with retaliation and has faith in the government of Athens. Although Socrates may not agree with the decision of the assembly to put him to his death, he realizes that he was done wrongly by the assembly rather than the laws of Athens themselves. I believe Socrates feels this way because he has lived under the laws of Athens for 70 years and he has raised his children under the same principles. Socrates accepts the fact that being a member of society demands a certain respect and obedience. Without the rules and punishment system Athens would not be able to function properly. As Socrates decided to become a citizen of the state of Athens he also takes along with him the responsibility of being a citizen of that state. In following the more reasonable people I believe Socrates is merely following the path in which the Gods intended.
The trial of Socrates and the trial of Jesus are related due to the fact that there is little real evidence in either trial. Socrates is accused by Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon for being an evil-doer who corrupts young people and does not believe in G-d (Plato, Apology 563). In spite of how serious these charges sound, Socrates explains that these men hold grudges against him and are only antagonizing him in order to seek revenge. Elaborating on this point, Socrates states, “Meletus…has a quarrel with me on behalf of the poets; Anytus, on behalf of the craftsmen and politicians; Lycon, on behalf of the rhetoricians…Hence has arisen the prejudice against me” (Plato, Apology 563). It is clear from this statement that Socrates has offended these people and that they do not view him in a positive light. It is also true that the witnesses selected t...
Socrates is accused of impiety and for corrupting the lives of youths through his interactions with them and his teachings. Socrates defends his position on all charges believing he is doing just cause and in doing so is steadfastly abiding by his moral standards. Socrates believes that what matters is life and living it well. Socrates believes he should be rewarded rather than punished for his beliefs. He thinks he should be given free meals in the Prytaneum, where the Olympic athletes are celebrating or to pay a small sum of money which his friends raise to three times what Socrates proposes. In the end, Socrates accepts the judgment bestowed on him by the courts, the sentence of death. He accepts this verdict because he believes it is morally just to abide by the decision handed down by the state.
In his play, The Clouds, Aristophanes lampooned Socrates by presenting him as the paradigm of atheistic, scientific sophistry. Yet it is unlikely that Aristophanes would have intended these charges to be taken seriously, since Plato depicts Aristophanes and Socrates as being on very good terms with each other in the Symposium. "For those who are examined, instead of being angry with themselves, are angry with me!" This is the essential reconciliation for why Socrates is considered wise, and, at the same time, acquired a bad reputation among the most socially powerful
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, 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...
Putting an innocent man on trial for a crime that he did not commit and throwing the death penalty at him, is what happened in Athens Greece around 339 B.C. A seventy year old Socrates was held in court in front of 501 jury members where it was decided that poisoning himself with hemlock would be the only solution for the old man. The people of Greece decided to send Socrates away to prison where he would wait until his time to face death would come. Knowing his friend had done nothing wrong, Crito proposes a plan of escape, but the great philosopher refuses to take any sort of action. After Crito approaches Socrate and tells him that he fears he will lose a friend in Socrates death, his own reputation throughout Greece will be ruined, and
After studying Plato’s Apology, an account of Socrates’s defense at his murder trial, I have concluded that Socrates is not guilty.
Although deeply illuminating, in my view, the philosophy behind Socrates and all of his actions in response to the accusations brought forth against him, as depicted in Plato’s “The Apology”, is ironically quite straightforward. To understand Socrates’ actions or rather lack of it to prevent a probable severe punishment, as far as this case goes, it is important to analyze two specific believes of him; his believe regarding death, and his belief about living. To begin with, Socrates clearly shows his complete acceptance of death as an innocuous end that should not justify any means, “if you suppose that a man who is of even a little benefit should take into account the danger of living or dying, but not rather consider this alone whenever he acts: whether his actions are just or unjust, and the deeds of a good man or a bad” (West, p. 28b) demoting an argument that would ease a
Some of the best sources of information about Socrates' philosophical views are the early dialogues of his student Plato, who tried to provide a faithful picture of the methods and teachings of the great master. The Apology is one of the many-recorded dialogues about Socrates. It is about how Socrates was arrested and charged with corrupting the youth, believing in no god(s) (Atheism) and for being a Sophist. He attended his trial and put up a good argument. I believe that Socrates was wrongfully accused and should not have been sentenced to death. Within the duration of this document, I will be discussing the charges laid against Socrates and how he attempted to refute the charges.
Socrates mentioned that Meletus, Anytus and Lycon who have brought the present charges to the court are the latest accusers who have accused him of anything. He has older accusers, which he has more reasons to fear than these recent accusers because the older ones have been speaking out against him from the time of their youth and their accusations has gotten to a more extent level than the second. The first accusers accused Socrates of two acts, which they were: believing in spiritual things and corrupting the young ones by teaching them how to make weaker arguments overcome stronger arguments.
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 will be praised for his wisdom and contributions to western thinking for a very long time. Some of his ideas prevail today among philosophers, and his thinking has shaped modern science. Perhaps we should throw out the book, considering his botched defense. Socrates claims to know nothing and we should take his word for it. Socrates did a poor job in defending his own life in court, so why should we use his tools and devices to this day in our persuasive arguments? It seems clear that Socrates did nearly everything in his power to have himself executed. Going through his arguments there are many glaring issues, had contemporary individuals been his jury, his fate would not likely change. While some argue, he had no intention of getting