Essay on Socrates' Fight for Justice

Throughout Plato’s Apology, Socrates is meant to defend himself against his accusers in court. They charge him with corrupting the youth of Athens by teaching them about false gods. He spends the majority of the speech establishing his authority as a wise and innocent man, seemingly to convince the jury of these claims. He contends for his ethos in every aspect of his argument. He continuously defends his character and intentions. Socrates explains to the men of the jury that he is a normal man who has been accused for most of his life. He rationalizes their inherent bias against him and outlines reasons they should consider him without them, but his argument is not attempting to convince the jury of his innocence. Socrates’ defense of himself

Depicting the justification between the Athenian jury against the father of philosophy, the Apology exhibits Plato's recollection and interpretation of the notorious trial of Socrates. Accused of refusing to worship the gods recognized by the Athenian state, corrupting the youth, and informally addressing himself throughout the trial, Socrates presents himself as a villain or an enemy to the Athenian society and jury. Even though Socrates could have solicited pity towards the jury by strengthening his defense with emotional appeal, Socrates’ refusal to appease the jury in the Apology justly transcends the moral values of the Athenian jury and the modern human. Socrates’ emphasis on preserving the impartiality of the trial provides support for Socrates’ refusal to appease the jury. Given the opportunity to show pathos and ethos appeal --the importance of his family and friends-- Socrates restrains himself from instigating any bias into the trial, in order to keep the trial unprejudiced.

The Apology presents a dialogue that eludes to Socrates’ accepting law breaking under certain circumstances. Socrates is depicted as a man who stands for what he believes in, regardless of the law. Socrates expresses this to the jury stating, “I, men of Athens, salute you and love you, but I will obey the god rather than you” (Apology, 29d2-3) Socrates even could be seen as pardoning disobedience here. Socrates continues in the Apology to defy the potential ruling of the jury by stating that, “I shall never cease from the practice and teaching of philosophy, exhorting anyone whom I meet after my manner, and convincing him…” (Apology, 29d). The charges being discussed are that of corrupting the youth and not believing in the gods of the state, but Socrates disagreed with the heavily. Socrates, regarding his teaching and lifetime of work, stated, “For this is the command of God, as I would have you know; and I believe that to this day no greater good has ever happened in the state than my service to the God” (Apology, 29d). Thus, the Apology presents a theme that to do what one believes regardless of the civil implications, but only when pursuing a moral decision.

The case laid out by Crito argues that should Socrates choose to remain in jail and allow the court to execute him that the consequences of his death would cause such harm to his loved ones that to do so would constitute an immoral act. The first portion of his argument

Socrates believes that justice will reign supreme, and a innocent man that is sentenced to death by the state wrongfully will suffer for the sake of principle rather than be silenced. When this occurs, his message is more likely to be

Socrates was being guided by his moral beliefs when he decided not to escape from prison. Socrates informs us of his principle when he says, “[…] my first principle, that neither injury

The Apology written by Plato, takes us on a journey of Socrates’s trial. The City of Athens presented charges accusing Socrates of impiety and for corrupting the youth of Athens. Socrates defensive arguments take you on a trip, trying to show that the charges he’s being charged with are absurd. He goes on to defend himself by giving presumable facts as to why the prosecutors would want to condemn him setting up the argument to automatically show that these charges are unjust. Socrates then proceeds to address the charges brought against him addressed in the opening sentences. This paper will confront the two methods of defense in succession.

In “Crito”, we might’ve imagined that the dialogue would argue against obeying the laws. However, given Plato’s view on Athenian democracy he finds justification to support the laws regardless of the will of the people. In this paper I will assess Plato’s arguments for why Socrates should remain in prison and accept his death sentence. My main focus will be on Socrates primary argument, which is solely based on the premise that doing unjust actions harm’s one’s soul, and life is not living with a ruined soul. From that statement, I however, believe Socrates should escape Prison for he has not done anything to physically harm the people of Athens.

I believe that the Socrates general reason for making all his claim in my opinion is because he was tired of people living the lazy life and not going beyond their ability to attain the best to their ability. Socrates was put on trial for many things; he did it through his endless and circular Socratic dialogues. He would abide by the law and did not even try to persuade the jury he was not guilty (Scott 38). Thus, abiding to the law is not an option, but an obligation for all of

In “The Apology,” Socrates represents himself in his own trial. He boldly questions the morality of the people of court. In this report, I will be analyzing portions of “The Apology” in order to reveal the intellectuality of this text within this time frame. I will only discuss bits of “The Apology“ on account that it is a lengthy piece. However, before discussing the speech it is important to set the scene. Socrates was born in 469 B.C.E. and lived to 399 B.C.E. (Nails, 2014).

Socrates was a very simple man who did not have many material possessions and spoke in a plain, conversational manner. Acknowledging his own ignorance, he engaged in conversations with people claiming to be experts, usually in ethical matters. By asking simple questions, Socrates gradually revealed that these people were in fact very confused and did not actually know anything about the matters about which they claimed to be an expert. Socrates felt that the quest for wisdom and the instruction of others through dialogue and inquiry were the highest aims in life. He felt that "The unexamined life is not worth living." Plato's Apology is the speech Socrates made at his trial. Socrates was charged with not recognizing the

In the dialogue Crito, the Laws state that “One must obey the commands of one’s city and country, or persuade it as to the nature of justice” (51c1-2). In this paper, a third option in response to the state, i.e. punishment in reaction to unjust acts, will be advocated for. To this end, I will argue that Socrates could be justified in escaping because doing so could have punished the Laws of Athens, which would have helped the Laws maintain their virtue. This argument exists in two parts. First, I will use the three Laws speeches from the Crito in attempt to show that it is just for Socrates to punish the Laws. Next, I will use the same three speeches as well as the original verdict given in the Apology to try to show that escaping is in

In Plato’s: The Apology Socrates was charged and put on trial for impiety, as well as accused of committing many other crimes. I will first explain the most important issues of why Socrates was sent to death. Then I will argue the position that Socrates is innocent, and should not be have been found guilty.

In the dialogue, Crito, Socrates justified his decision to accept his death penalty. His decision was praised as principled and just. However, such a view was one of the greatest myths in the history of philosophy. Contrary to the accepted ideas, I wish to show that Socrates’ argument was erroneous, the crucial error being his failure to distinguish between substantial and procedural justice. In fact, the whole of the Crito refers to some deeper problems of the philosophy of law and morality.

Socrates argues that he must remain in prison and accept his death sentence because he feels he has benefitted from the society he lives in. He feels he has benefitted from its security, having the ability to raise a family, and being employed. Making Socrates believe because of this he has obligations to comply with the laws of the society he chose to live in for so long. Socrates states an opinion of an expert is more important than the opinion of the majority, using someone in training as an example (Farrell, n.d.). This person doesn’t pay attention to the advice of the general public but pays attention to his trainer (Farrell, n.d.). If the person did listen to public opinion (take steroids, eat anything they want, or train 10 hours a day),