Socrates was put to trial, accused of spoiling the youth of Athens, tried and sentenced to death. His personal defense is described in works two of his students: Xenophon and Plato. Both of them wrote papers called Apology, which is the Greek word for “defense”. In this essay I used Apology by Plato as the main resource, since it contents a more full account of the trial of Socrates and his words. Despite the fact that the philosopher attempted to defend himself and explain the reasons for saying and doing the things he did, it did not do any good for his justification.
Reasoning is all the positive and opposing arguments that support or critique the thesis by using logic. Socrates was accused and charged with being a corruptor of the youth and denying the gods of the city but introducing other divinities. Socrates defends his case by using reasoning and logic. Socrates said that if every Athenian improved the youth while only he corrupts them, then is influence should not have a greater effect than all the Athenians. Socrates didn’t corrupt the youth.
The first defence was against the claim that he had corrupted the youth, “[I]t’s Meletus who is guilty of playing around with serious matters, of lightly bringing people to trial, and of professing to be seriously concerned about things he has never cared about at all” (Plato, Apology, 24c). By saying this is, Socrates addresses his opinion on Meletus, that Meletus is somebody who knows nothing about a situation, yet brings people to trial and pretends to be concerned about things, when in reality- he never cared. The second defence was against the claim that he philosophized cosmology. Meaning, he studied the earth, emphasizing that he never believed in a God, which made him look as if he lacked impiety. Socrates defence against this was, “You aren’t all convincing, Meletus, not even, it seems to me, to yourself.
I will provide a brief opening statement. Socrates was accused for corrupting the youth, teaching out of the charge and not believing in gods. These accusation were brought by Melatus, Anytus, Lycon and citizens of Athens. Below I will try to prove that Socrates was not guilty for corrupting young people neither willingly nor unwillingly, he was not a sophist, and also
Juror 10 allows his prejudice to blind him of the truth. That is until he is called out by his fellow jurors. Throughout the whole play, Juror Ten remains stubborn in his decision that the defendant is guilty. Yet, at the end the finally sees that there is reasonable doubt (62). Interestingly enough, on the previous page Juror Ten is called out by Juror Four (60).
The jurors took literally almost day just bickering and arguing over whether the boy was guilty or not. In act two the jurors were starting to change their mind about their vote on whether or not the boy was guilty or not. That is where they started to kind of come to an agreement. From the beginning of act one juror number eight was always on the boys side, and the other guys always questioned why he thought the boy was innocent. Juror number eight did not have a reason he said “ he’s nineteen years old”.
Danforth expresses his opinions on lying when Mary Warren enter his court to confess herself and he begins the conversation by saying, “How were you instructed in your life? Do you not know that God damns all liars?” (Miller 101). Through this statement he clearly demonstrates his belief that lying will send a person to Hell. As the story progresses, Danforth and many other officials begin to realize that the entire situation in Salem progressed to far and honest people will continue to die unless they can convince people to lie in order to save themselves. Danforth explains his inability to free the accused people because, “twelve are already hanged for the same crime.
In Plato’s Apology, Socrates is put into trial because he is accused of corrupting the youth with his teachings that deviate from the established beliefs of the Greek society. Although he justifies that he is only doing what he believes is his duty, he reasons that even if he is given a death penalty, death is nothing to be feared. He raises multiple strong and effective arguments that explain to his audience that it is illogical to fear death. All of these arguments revolves around the central idea that death is not evil and that “no evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death” (Apology, 41c). The first argument that Socrates presents during his trial is the idea that death is not the most important thing to worry about in
In Plato’s Apology, Socrates is charged with not recognizing the gods recognized by corrupting the youth. Socrates defends himself, but his defense does not work. He loses the trial which leads to him be sentenced to death, and he has to face death. Throughout his defense, he brings up the subject of death and constructs a proper view of death. Socrates regards death as not being a bad thing.
Even a blatant, “I’ll kill you!” supposedly exclaimed by the boy towards his father was enough for the him to make his decision. This man was shown to be short tempered throughout the play. As more jurors began taking into account the evidence and proving the accused innocence, juror 3 became louder and far more boisterous. He wouldn’t even let the summer heat halt his anger, anger which soon consumed him and brought out the hypocrisy of his claim by hissing through his teeth to another juror, “Let me go. I’ll kill him.