Socrates Apology Analyzed

Socrates Apology Analyzed

        Socrates Apology was a defense speech given by Socrates to the court of Athens.  In it Socrates must use his accusers’ affidavits as a basis to both respond to and argue his innocence against many allegations and charges made against him by multiple accusers.  He uses more than one technique to make his points in an excellent effort to convince the court of his innocence and thereby spare his life.   

For example he uses deductive logic to dismiss the allegations of being an atheist.  By pointing out that his actions were actually in pursuit of the Oracle prediction made to him, he reminds the court that the Oracle is indeed a demi-god created by gods.  And thus if he believes in the existence of a demi-god then he must, by default, believe in the gods. A more interesting argument he made is that he knows that he is not well liked by many and even admits he can be very annoying by liking himself to a “gadfly”. But he states that these in themselves are not crimes and that he does so only in the pursuit of truth and wisdom. He also suggests that revenge for this behavior is the primary motive of his accusers.  When he continues on to confront the charge of corrupting the youth he uses another approach.  He suggests that it was not his intent to do so if he did at all.  And that ignorance of doing such an act is not a crime but that only intentional actions are punishable by law. Therefore since his actions were not intended to corrupt the youth he is not guilty of doing so.

        Socrates’ argument against his atheism is compelling and valid.  The accuser contradicts themselves in their own statement and therefore it is not sound.  And a witness against him was made to look foolish when cross-examined by Socrates. This is most definitely not concrete evidence and certainly not enough to take a man’s life.   Confirmation in his belief of the gods exists in his admitted belief and acceptance of the Oracle. 

The idea he put forth in his being disliked by his accusers and that revenge led to the allegations against him is also something to be seriously considered.  Especially when you consider that even the court knows of Socrates verbal skills and indeed warns against being manipulated by his words.  This only solidifies the idea that his wisdom is not only disliked but to be feared.  How can you tell a jury not to allow a person’s defense to persuade them to save his life?   

        When he insists that intent is the basis of guilt; he makes another good point.  It is intent that motivates us to take action and our behavior.  His intentions were motivated by the desire to find truth.  Nothing can be more benevolent or harmless.  As he states “the unexamined life is not worth living.”  It is impossible for anyone to foresee who will be influenced or how they are influenced to react to one’s own actions, behaviors or words.  Socrates then infers that if he had intentionally corrupted the youth he would also being doing himself an injustice by indirectly corrupting himself by means of the company he keeps.  This represents a common idea.  Birds of a feather…, guilty by association, it takes one to know one, etc. So he basically tells the court that any corruption he caused would make him corrupt as well, which is not a charge against him, so neither can be true. 

         As I examined the text and reread key parts to get a better understanding, I found Socrates to have presented himself well.  In fact, his defense was so well stated it is difficult to prove false.  There was almost no real evidence against him save for a few sworn affidavits.  Affidavits he all but proved were suspect.  The atheism charge is certainly disproved by his belief in the Oracle alone.  The fact that Socrates was disliked for his badgering style of questioning is not a crime and that the people who accused him had publicly debated and subsequently humiliated by him make their accusations against him very suspect as well.  So his revenge defense holds water too. 

        If Socrates behavior was really corruptive to the youth then why did no one speak up about it when he challenged anyone in the courtroom to do so?  Whether or not he intended to corrupt is irrelevant if no legitimate proof or testimony can confirm he did at all.  And again I ask how a court can ask the judges or jury not be persuaded by testimony or defense of the accused?  How can they ask to disregard the defendants’ (Socrates) statement and defense?  There’s a man’s life at stake!  While I would agree that someone can unintentionally influence others I cannot accept that one person is responsible for another’s actions or behavior.  We all must accept responsibility for our own actions.  

        The only flaw I found in Socrates defense was his arrogance and closing remarks.  Unless he knew it was a futile attempt to clear his name or he actually wanted to be a martyr I don’t know why he said some things he did except for anger.  It was his courage to stand his ground in the face of death and the conviction in his beliefs that command respect. That said, I don’t think he completely proved his innocence but he definitely cast a doubt as to his guilt.  Without any supporting evidence or testimony I would have accepted his plea/apology, found him not guilty and fined him the amount he proposed.

What is Justice?

What is Justice?

      It is from behind the “veil of ignorance” proclaimed by John Rawls, basically meaning without identity or not knowing who you are, that I must give the general principle/s of “justice” which should be used to govern society.  This philosophical inquiry overlaps into several areas; requiring the examination and thought given to ethics, political philosophy (politics) and possibly even logic.

       Without knowing who I am, my social status, wealth, age or gender I believe I would agree with John Rawls in that I would foremost want to be guaranteed fair treatment and opportunities to succeed in a society.  I also like the way John Stuart Mill defined liberty and I find it to be remarkably similar to the ideas written by Thomas Jefferson in “The Declaration of Independence.”   They both were influenced by John Locke because they insist that there are basic human rights that need to be protected; an idea first put forth by Locke that he called “inalienable personal rights.”   These are rights that all people have.  They are needs that must be met in order to live and maintain a functioning society.  Mill adds a boundary on these rights by stating that they shouldn’t harm another or infringe on the right of others. I also tend to agree with Rawls concept of “justice” because he believes that truly “just” means it must be truly “fair.”  The two are one-in-the-same or intrinsically linked.  Social utility is the core principle of social justice according to Mill.  Social utility is basically like democracy in that it’s a majority rule type system by defining justice as whatever “creates the greatest social benefit for the greatest number of people.”(Chaffee570)  This seems fair at first, until realizing that a majority of people can be disillusioned, deceived, misinformed and uniformed by means of manipulation and propaganda.  That sort of thing could and most certainly has led to unjust action and choices.  Unfortunately this allows for potentially large portions of the population to feel unfairly treated and that justice did not occur. 

       I find Rawls concept of “justice” to be both a sound and valid argument because to be fair is to be just and to be just is to be fair.  I simply cannot find or think of an instance where they are not one in the same.  I do not find Mill’s social utility to be quite as convincing an argument.  There is no proof that the fairest course of action is always the most popular.  Mill did make some very good points about liberty that are valid.  His insightful idea to include free thought and expression undoubtedly laid the foundation for the “Bill of rights” in the American “Constitution.” He also insisted that one has the freedom to exercise these rights as long as they don’t harm anyone else or infringe in any way on another’s rights.  These are both important ideas when considering “justice” in a society.   John Locke’s “inalienable personal rights” concept has validity in that it means that no one person should hold the power of life and death over another.  No one should be denied the ability, opportunity or necessary resources to survive. 

        I would create a just society by governing on the principles of rights and liberty and equality and fairness with each individual having the freedoms to engage in any form of activity they so choose as long as they do not harm or infringe on the rights of others, whether purposefully or otherwise.  These same rules would apply to corporations and governments organizations alike.  Some particular instances where it is necessary due to location and resources for some people to suffer relocation or seizure of property for the greater good should be duly, fairly, timely and completely compensated.  In order to prevent the prediction of Karl Marx we would not use a monetary system.  Monetary systems are inherently flawed and have only proved to promote greed.  Greed compels and tempts individuals to do immoral or unethical practices often leading to the unfair treatment, violation of rights and harm of others. With term limits on policy makers, proficiency tests and equal representation, laws would be fair and just.  In a just society, taxes would be evenly spread out by the use of resources.  Those that use more and consume the most put more strain on the society and system.  Therefore they should be required to pay more especially if those resources are used for profit.  The consequences for violating laws should be fair and swift.  All penalties for violations are the same regardless of any status.  There are no exceptions.        

Works Cited Page

Chaffee, J. (2013). “The Philosopher’s Way: A text with readings”  5^th Ed. 

City University of New York, Pearson