Corruption In Socrates's Accusers

653 Words3 Pages
Socrates presents himself in front of the jury to defend him on account of four charges. He has many accusers. The three old accusers are Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon. The new accusers charge Socrates for giving rational reasons for the phenomenon that is considered to be creations of the gods and for making a weaker argument trump a strong one: moral corruption. They accuse Socrates because he teaches other people to follow his ways. Metelus accuses him for corrupting the minds of the young and for not believing in the gods. Socrates defends himself against the charges very efficiently. He is a wise man. When he proves himself innocent; he completely deconstructs the basis of the offenses. In they play by Aristophanes, Socrates is portrayed as a man who is “proclaiming that he is walking on air, and uttering a great deal of other nonsense” [19c]. He asks the jury if they have actually witnessed him speak about philosophical things. He claims that all of the people who have said they have are unreliable. He defends himself against the charge of him being a teacher by defining a teacher. To him, a teacher…show more content…
He asks Metelus whose jobs it is to teach the youth. And Metelus answers that it is the job of the law. Metelus says that it is the job any the member of the court; he claims that it is everybody job but Socrates. That claim is absurd. If the entire population of Athens has the right to influence the youth, why can’t he? Also, he argues how even if he did corrupt the youth it had to be unintentional. If was intentional then he would effectively be a bad person and bad people get bad effects. If he corrupts somebody then he would expect to be harmed. He’s never been harmed before so his corruption would have to be unintentional. It argues that if a person is unintentionally causing harm then they should be informed of their doings not
Open Document