Meletus Argument Against Socrates

964 Words2 Pages

Socrates should have been dismissed of all charges brought against by Meletus since they are biased and illogical. How can someone be a heretic and atheist because these are two opposing charges? How can someone corrupt others without harming themselves? Furthermore, it is very prejudice to prosecute someone based on your personal biased towards them. Which said individuals or individuals can influence the jurors ahead of time. To be a heretic one must one must believe in a supreme being, to be atheist one does believe in an all-powerful being. Meletus argument is invalid and should be used against Socrates. Even though during that period being apathies which was not acknowledged. Thus Meletus cannot use that claim even if he wanted to, and if he did Socrates can deny it. Socrates even stated that he believe in souls and …show more content…

He stated his purpose was to question everything I come into contact because I know what knowledge is. He saying killing him is destroying a gift from the gods and will not be easy to replace. Therefore killing Socrates would be a crime against the gods themselves. “That is what I say, that you do not believe in the gods at all.” (page 31) Socrates is claiming that Meletus is the real atheist because he is going against their wishes. Meletus openly admits he wants to charge Socrates with a greater crime. This is illegal, dishonorable, disrespectful and should not be tolerated when trying to have a firm legal system. That is why even if Meletus can make a claim this whole trail should be thrown out since it's highly prejudice. For all we know Meletus could have bribe or threaten certain jurors to persuade others. There were 500 jurors and it takes is one juror to make the deciding vote. The majority jurors are common men and have little to no knowledge on the legal system. With so many flaws in the legal system all crimes brought upon Socrates should be

Open Document