Is Socrates Guilty, or Not - Essay Example

? Is Socrates guilty, or not? Socrates is one of the greatest ical Greek philosophers who lived between 469BC-399BC. He has been thought of as one of the founders of Western Philosophy. Socratic Method and Socratic irony have grown out of his teachings. His ideas and philosophy have formed the basis for western philosophy. As his life, his death also has been much talked about because of his trial and execution. This paper is an attempt to answer the question: “Is Socrates guilty, or not?” When justice and truth are considered in law, it is important to look at the validity of the authority and the court. Yes, Socrates was found guilty by the court of his time. A person can be held guilty or innocent of any crime committed, but the validity of the judgement is as good as the validity of the court structure in which the person was tried. Before going on to answer if Socrates is guilty or not, it is first necessary to understand the legal circumstances in which he was tried. Therefore, the societal norms and standards of time must be understood along with the how legitimate the accusers were and the nature of crimes that he was accused of. Socrates was mainly accused of two charges: corruption of youth and impiety. Following extract explains what exactly Socrates was accused of: Socrates commits injustice and is a busybody, in that he investigates the things beneath the earth and in the heavens, makes the weaker argument the stronger, and teaches these things to others. (Morgan, 2005, 47). Socrates was first charged with impiety. That is, he was portrayed to be a person who did not believe in the conventional Gods of Athens and instead introduced deities of his own. In the literal sense, impiety means that Socrates totally did not believe in God at all. But this accusation is not even remotely true and Socrates himself has clarified it in his defence. He was of the strong belief that Apollo communicated with him through a divine voice. He has stated that he was stationed in Athens by the Gods and they wanted him to question people’s wisdom. But if, when the God stationed me here, as I am thoroughly convinced he did, to live practicing philosophy, examining myself and others, I had – for fear of death or anything else – abandoned my station. (Morgan, 2005, 54) According to this argument it is clear that Socrates did believe in the Gods. So it is not possible for him to be an atheist and at the same time believe in God. This would be contradictory to each other. Also he has not introduced any new Gods of his own. Constantly throughout his trial he has demonstrated his belief in God. Hence, the accusation of him being an impiety is false. The second charge on Socrates was that he was corrupting the youth with his teachings. His accusers argued that in doing so, the very fabric of the Athenian society was attacked. But this is not true. Socrates believed that everything needs to be questioned and analysed. Therefore, instead of accepting and bowing down to those who were in power and had authority, he questioned them. He questioned the knowledge of the people who had the reputation of being wise. He believed that his main role in life was to question the wisdom of other people. In doing so, he believed he could expose those who had falsely claimed to be wise and knowledgeable. This ideology of Socrates cannot be viewed as a crime, neither in today’s world nor during Socrates’ time. It is very important for a nation to question the legitimacy of those in power. Hence, this was a false accusation on Socrates. The accusation of corrupting the youth was more a result of vengeance by those in power whose legitimacy Socrates had questioned. The artisans, poets, politicians, etc were all offended by this attitude of Socrates. Socrates had made it his job to make fools out of the powerful and exposed their lack of wisdom and knowledge by questioning their speeches and acts. This did not go down well with the people with power he targeted. Hence, he was accused of corrupting the youth so that the powerful wouldn’t be questioned anymore. The teachings of Socrates did not have any personal agenda and he did not even charge any fees for teaching. His only intention was to spread knowledge. This was again held against him. It was argued that as he does not charge any fees, he influenced people into thinking that he was right and in turn the people (wise and powerful) were not wise at all. Socrates himself argued that it is not for the charges against him that he will be convicted, but the prejudice of the many people that will convict him. “And it’s what will convict me, if I am convicted: not Meletus of Antyus, but the slander and malice of many people. It certainly convicted many other good men as well, and I imagine it will do so again. There’s no danger it will stop with me.” (Morgan, 2005, 54). Another important aspect of the trial that raises suspicion is the fact that it was carried out in a single day. This is not acceptable even in those times. One day is too less for any accused to defend himself. In other cities of the time, like Sparta, the trail would have been carried out for a longer time. Socrates himself has said that if the trial was carried out for a longer time, then he could have convinced the jury that he was not guilty. He could have proved that he was innocent if he had gotten more time. The urgency in finishing the trial clearly indicates that there was no intention of running a proper trial but it was a way to end the trouble that Socrates had caused to those in power. The decision to execute was already made and the trial was only way to legalise it. The most important factor that needs to be considered here is the Socrates was blamed of violations which were in no sense criminal. That is, there weren’t any crimes committed. As he says in his own words that he has not corrupted the youth and if he has, it is unintentional. Hence, there was no need for him to be tried in a court. Instead he had to be called in private and instructed not to do so. As these were unintentional, Socrates would have agreed to continue doing what he was doing. Even though if he was guilty of what he was accused, they are not punishable crimes. He needed to instructed and not punished. “No, either I’m not corrupting the young or, if I am corrupting them, it’s unintentionally, so that in either case what you say is false. But if I’m corrupting them unintentionally, the law doesn’t require that I be brought to court for such mistakes – that is, unintentional ones – but that I be taken aside for private instructions and admonishment. For it’s clear that if I’m instructed, I’ll stop doing what I do unintentionally.” (Morgan, 2005, 52) From the above arguments, it can be clearly seen that Socrates was not guilty of the crimes he was accused. He was the victim who suffered at the hands of the powerful of the Athenian society. The questioning of the supposedly highly intellectual and the powerful of the society by Socrates did not go down well with them and in turn he was accused and found guilty of non-existent crimes. It is to be noted that the authority to order the trial and look after the proceedings of the trial were the same people that Socrates had questioned and made a mockery out of them in public. Hence, the accusations and trial were an act of vengeance and corruption. Socrates, himself, has made it clear that he believed in God and in no sense preached otherwise. Also none of the accusations were criminal in nature and there was no need for a trial, more importantly there was no need for any punishment. Hence, Socrates was not guilty and was victim of corruption and abuse of power. Works Cited Morgan, M.L. (2005). Classics of moral and political theory. IN: Hackett Publishing. Print. Read More