The Unjust Death of Socrates Essays

The only “benefit” that might be put forward in defense of the death sentence is that Socrates would not be able to continue shaming the orators of Athens. The subtext of Socrates' trial in the Apology showed a man begging the crowd for some legitimate reason that could justify his being on trial in the first place, since none of his named accusers' claims appeared to be true from his dialogues with them (Apology, 33d). His pleas are met with silence, a jury of five hundred men shifting uncomfortably in their seats with the knowledge they were sentencing a man to death for being annoying. This is indeed the “real” reason that he was convicted - because he was annoying, especially to the ruling orators who were routinely shamed by him (Apology, 29e). So, perhaps his death does convey a benefit to someone – those who would have been shamed by him for being less than virtuous - but this is not a benefit worth defending. Socrates would no doubt agree with this, since he refused to discontinue exhorting people to be virtuous in his own trial, despite knowing it probably meant a conviction.

This report will discuss the major elements in Socrates' argument, regarding the injury and injustice he would cause by escaping from prison prior to his execution. Further discussion will be centered around Socrates' ability to maintain this ideology despite his

Socrates is on trial because people assume that he corrupts the youth, and fails to acknowledge the gods in which the city acknowledges. Socrates is a philosopher in his 70’s who is well known to the citizens of Athens. His reputation to most other people of Athens is a very intellectual gadfly.

The city of Athens put the philosopher Socrates on trial on three charges; corrupting the cities youth, denying the cities gods, and making the weaker speech the stronger. His accusers, Meletus the poet being the primary and most vocal, tri him in front of judges for these charges, with the end resulting in Socrates being sentenced to death. Socrates claims that they use these charges because they are easy at hand for use against those who philosophize, and that they are not just. I do not believe the sentence of death of Socrates by Athens was just, but its almost as if Socrates falls on the sword.

Socrates was the most radical thinker of his time. “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question.” (Mills) His radical l ideas were what eventually caused his death, but they are also the reason that we still remember him today. Socrates was put on trial because the people of his time thought that he was poisoning the minds of their youth. The young men of that time would go to Socrates to learn things, and when they shared the knowledge that they learned with their parents they were angry and for this reason he was put on trial. His trial is

He suggests that he should receive maintenance at Athens expense. Socrates argues against banishment from Athens and states that he will only continue to practice philosophy and annoy people elsewhere. Socrates claims that the verdict reflects his own refusal to "agree sophistically". "Weep and wail and say unworthy things. It is unworthy to be sevile to escape danger". Socrates then claims that vengeance shall fall upon his executioners. He claimed that instead of executing a critic, the verdict will only make more critics and thus the opposite result will be achieved. His final message was to not stifle criticism and to make themselves as manly as they are. Socrates then comforts those who voted for aquital by suggesting death a blessing. Socrates then states that death is either an eternal dreamless sleep or a migration of the soul from this place to another. Socrates of course states that maybe he will spend his time examining his ideas of his fellow intellectuals. Socrates then claims that nothing can harm a good man.

The exact definition of Socrates’ death is Suicide, but one could easily argue in favor of execution. Outside of Socrates himself, 503 people were present for his trial. Of the 503, 3 were citizens who accused Socrates of his crimes. Meanwhile the other 500 were a gathering of Athenians.

Good morning my fellow Athenians, I, Aristogeiton, have step forward to present a solution and what will be the end result for Socrates. Socrates, a man who’s name brings joy to the hearts of some and brings hatred to the hearts of some. I understand that we all are outraged for two different reasons. One reason I assume is why is Socrates on trial and the other reason I assume is why is Socrates not punished. All though I believe that Socrates has done us wrong in the name of democracy, the very form of government and foundation in which he resides under, I do not believe in a death penalty.

According to Dr. Dave Yount, many Athenians still regret their decision to put Socrates to death to this day. Is this feeling of regret acceptable? This paper will explore the details surrounding the trial of Socrates and whether or not he was treated fairly throughout the sentencing process. In The Apology of Socrates, Plato describes the charges against Socrates as not believing in the gods recognized by the state, introducing supernatural beings, and corrupting the youth (246. 9-12). By considering Socrates’ impiety, internal betrayal of the city, and arrogance and hypocritical words, it should be understood that the Athenians were just in their verdict and punishment of Socrates.

At the age of 70, Socrates was put to death on charges of impiety and moral corruption of the youth. However, his trial, on with the political and social context that occurred, has guaranteed as much intervention from classicists and historians as his methods and arguments have from philosophers, with the concerning spectacle it rose addressing into question the most basic principles of Athenian democracy.

After the assembly votes Socrates guilty, he is sentenced to death. Socrates refuses to accept any alternatives to being put to death, apart from his own ‘punishment’ for the assembly to consider. First, Socrates argues that imprisonment would leave him a “slave” to the different individuals who would run the prison over the years. Banishment is also rejected because Athens would have been the only city to accept his practices, and now that they won’t he would be left “wandering from city to city, and continuingly being expelled.” Most surprisingly, or rather, most obviously, he also rejects being free, but being barred from practicing philosophy saying, “I cannot hold my peace because that would be to disobey the god.” Initially, rejecting this sentence seems irrational, but by accepting this punishment Socrates would no longer be of

It is not told to us by Plato the amount of votes that condemned Socrates, but the death sentence in now lingering for Socrates. He pleads to the court and offers some mild penalties to pay for his actions. Socrates claims that Maletus did not reach 1/5th of the votes in favor of the accusations. Socrates claims that he should be treated very well in Athens and that the city should give him medals similar to those that are given to Olympic athletes and benefactors of Athens. He then requests free food for life and then comes to realization that he will pay with all the money that he has, which is very little. The court thinks about imprisonment and banishment. Socrates claims that if he is banished, the cycle will repeat itself. The final outcome was that Socrates was sentenced to death by hemlock. The innocent man was killed for an idea and belief that he stood up

Why would a seventy-year-old philosopher be put to death for what he was teaching in a society enjoying more freedom and democracy than any the world had ever seen? Plato (427-347 B.C.E.) is especially important to the understanding of the trial of Socrates because he, along with Xenophon, wrote the only two surviving accounts of the defense (or apology) of Socrates. Plato’s account is generally given more attention by scholars of the two authors because he, unlike Xenophon, actually attended the one-day trial of Socrates in Athens in 399 B.C.E. Both Plato and Chaerophon, another important witness present at the trial, knew how Socrates engaged in the Athenian intellectual community, what he shared with its members, and how original it may have been. Plato has been both a pupil and somewhat ardent admirer of Socrates, and for this reason his version of the trial may have been somewhat biased in favor of one whom he regarded as a great hero. At any rate, historians may be fairly certain that, even though Socrates has been to some extent idealized by his pupil, the account given represents what Plato believed to be true about his teacher. The turbulent history of Athens in the several years preceding his trial had a lot to do with the decisions to prosecute and ultimately convict Socrates. An examination of that history may not provide final answers, but it does provide

In most circumstances ending the life of a criminal as their punishment usually reflects the magnitude of the crimes that they committed, crimes that often involve the deaths of others or equally heinous actions, yet one historical example stands out for not following this rule. In 399 BC, in Athens, Greece, two men put a meek philosopher named Socrates on trial for two crimes he purportedly committed: not following state gods and corrupting the youth. These charges alleged against Socrates reflected the general sentiment of Athenians regarding Socrates; namely that he was an atheistic charlatan. The jury found Socrates guilty of these crimes and executed, a punishment that does not logically befit the supposed crimes that he committed. No sane or logical jury would find him guilty of such vague claims, especially in such a vehemently democratic polis as Athens, and they would never have executed Socrates for such meager offenses, nonetheless he was. Execution was especially unnecessary because Socrates himself was on the verge of death; he was in his seventies in the Greek era, so he was bound to die soon anyways. The central focus, then, is of understanding how on Earth the birthplace of democracy could have gone so awry and when they tried, convicted, and executed Socrates. Athens sentenced Socrates to death because his beliefs were against the flow of the changing Athenian ideological landscape, people regarded him as a pompous, elitist charlatan who impugned their core

No doubt, the jury, influenced by Meletus, assumed that they could intimidate Socrates with the threat of death. An intimidation meant to force him to end his practice of invoking ignorance and orating on the virtues of the soul. With his refusal to surrender the practices on which he had built his life, Socrates whether knowingly or not, was committing an act of political rebellion. The act of rebellion makes a significant difference in the message of Socrates. Had Socrates simply given up philosophy when bade to by Athens, it would have rendered his entire life meaningless. The time he spent traversing Athens cross-examining people about the way they were living their lives would have meant nothing, because in the end he would have