Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Athenian concept of justice socrates
Athenian concept of justice socrates
Dialogue written by plato
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Athenian concept of justice socrates
I am not so certain if Socrates' approach to his defense is particularly the brightest one, and it certainly is not an apology as the title has named it, but, there is a certain wisdom in the simple, plain structured arguments he presents. One of the first things he mentions, is for the jury to pardon him, in the case that he should slip into his accustomed way of speaking, just as they would pardon a foreigner for speaking in his accustomed manner. This appears to me to be a wise idea, as it is true, even in today's society that we tend to judge people on face value. People who do not speak English well, as Socrates would not have spoken "court language" very well, tend to be jusdged as stupid. Socrates next points out that Meletus is not the first man to accuse him. He adresse...
Socrates then questions him again about whether or not he alleges that he corrupts the youth intentionally or unintentionally. Meletus’ reply was that he does intentionally. Socrates begins to argue with Meletus about his previous statement and, what seems to become, more and more agitated with the fact that Meletus goes back and forth with his argument for the simple facet that he wants Socrates to face the death penalty which is evident in several occasions throughout Plato’s apology. Also, throughout Plato’s version of The Apology, he also makes sure that it is known that his first charges arose from general prejudices that surrounded him over the
If Socrates were put on trial today it would be much like his trial in Athens, most likely put on trial for the same reason of some citizens resenting him for his deeds of making them seem foolish. Upon living within our society, he would have had a grasp of what we value and want from life. Knowing about what his view of our society would most likely be, I believe that Socrates would defend himself and make a statement to our society by explain to us, are we only resent him due to our arrogance as found in the Apology and The Allegory of the Cave, how we must change our ways as a society by properly prioritizing our efforts to seek wisdom as seen in his conversation with Meno, and will refute how any punishment we could give him will not
According to Socrates, “Meletus is guilty of dealing frivolously with serious matters, of irresponsibly bringing people into court, and of professing to be seriously concerned with things about none of which he has ever cared” (Apology 24c). When Meletus brought Socrates to court upon unjust charges that should have been taken care of outside of court, it was extremely careless and cost an innocent man his life. Then Socrates claims that Meletus has no concern for the youth, but instead has weak alternative reasons for bringing Socrates to court. “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 about which you bring me to trial” (Apology 25c). This carelessness that Meletus shows is more dangerous than any philosophical persuasion that Socrates ever did. Socrates never put any person’s life in danger, instead he fought for life and justice like he tried to persuade Euthyphro not to kill his father (Euthryphro, 4). However, Meletus does not hesitate to destroy an innocent man’s reputation and does not even show remorse when he takes his life. At least Socrates has passion and meaning when he tries to persuade the
The writer however, feels that it was a wise decision for Socrates to simply condemn the jury and accept his fate. In a statement the writer states, “Socrates had agreed to abide by whatever Athens required of him in return.” Analyzing Socrates commitment and obligation to Athens is vital. However, his decision not to escape and flee are reasonable, but his acceptance of his unjustly sentencing is not. Therefore, Socrates’ decision to not act on an illegitimate sentencing was foolish and as a citizen he should have appealed his
Plato was the author of the Apology of Socrates, which was one of the four major works of ancient Greek literature. Though the title was the Apology of Socrates, the text referred to the defense speeches of Socrates against the Athenian council. At the end, Socrates was found to be guilty and was sentenced to death. However, the Athenian council was not acting justly because Socrates did nothing wrong as he had successfully developed a reasonable logic against the charges. I will address this notion through the analysis of the arguments and the logic that Socrates used to conduct his defense.
In the Apology, Socrates examines the charges brought against him by Meletus and tries to prove that they are false. The first charge brought against him is that he was corrupting the youth. Socrates responds to this by asking Meletus, in his opinion, how Socrates was corrupting the youth. Meletus says that Socrates was teaching the youth to go against the government. Socrates asks if there was anyone who was beneficial to the youth.
In his defense, Socrates claims over and again that he is innocent and is not at all wise, “…for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great.” Throughout the rest of his oration he seems to act the opposite as if he is better than every man, and later he even claims that, “At any rate, the world has decided that Socrates is in some way superior to other men.” This seems to be his greatest mistake, claiming to be greater than even the jury.
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 Plato’s Apology, when Socrates is pleading his defence, he makes a good argument against the charges of corrupting the youth of Athens. This is evident when he states that, firstly, Meletus, the man who is trying to get Socrates executed, has never cared about the youth of Athens and has no real knowledge on the subject. Secondly, Socrates states that if he was in some way corrupting the youth, then he was doing it unintentionally or unwillingly, in which case he was brought to court for no reason. Finally, Socrates brings to light the fact that Meletus doesn’t have a single witness to attest to Socrates’ corruption. This is how Socrates proves his argument that he isn’t responsible for corrupting the youth of Athens.
The main argument in The Apology by famous ancient Greek philosopher Plato is whether, notorious speaker and philosopher Socrates is corrupting the youth by preaching ungodly theories and teaching them unlawful ideas that do harm to individuals and society. In his words Socrates quoted the prosecution’s accusation against him: “Socrates is guilty of corrupting the minds of the young, and of believing in supernatural things of his own invention instead of the gods recognized by the state.” 1 Further Socrates consistently introduces tediously compiled number of examples to provide valid and sound arguments to prove that he is innocent of the charges brought up against him to the court.
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.
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.
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 ...
In the Apology Socrates is presenting his case before the jury due to an accusation on three accounts: not recognizing the gods recognized by the state, inventing new deities, and corrupting the youth of Athens. He presents his “defense” however in contrast to the scholarly definition of the term. He instead informs the jury of his philosophies and converses with them, stating that he must be wiser than ... ... middle of paper ... ... wisest, and justest, and best of all the men whom I have ever known” (118a).
Socrates questions Thrasymachus on why he adds the detail of the stronger to his definition of justice. Socrates than asks, if it is just for everyone to follow the laws that the ruler has made, if the ruler has made unjust laws. His argument is that people, even rulers make mistakes. This meaning that if a ruler makes mistakes on the law does that still make it just. It is a very conflicting argument to think about, if the rules are not just then why should they be followed but the rules were also put in place by someone who is supposed to know the difference between just and unjust and choose correctly. This relates to what Socrates says during his trial portrayed in the Apology. Socrates claims