Intro
The purpose of this paper is to summarize and critically evaluate Socrates’ reply to the charge that he is a wrongdoer who corrupts the youth. In this paper I will address the charges against Socrates and analyze his defense, focusing on his Horse Trainer Analogy and his Unintentional Argument. While Socrates develops very interesting analogies in his case, he never actually refutes the charges. I will analyze the strength of his arguments and the direct links he makes to himself. This paper is based on and references The Apology of Socrates as told by Plato. In it Socrates is addressing the charges levied against him, primarily corrupting the youth, and his main accuser Meletus
Summary
The charges against Socrates are brought before the trial, and in the Apology Socrates addresses them. The main charge Meletus pushes is that Socrates is an evil man who corrupts the youth. Socrates is also accused of believing in other gods. Instead, Socrates says that Meletus is the true evil man, only pretending to care about the youth, and is using that as a pretense to bring him to trial. To prove this, Socrates poses a line of questioning to Meletus.
His main question is who improves the youth. Socrates asks this question because in Meletus declaring him a corruptor of the youth, he must know a better way for them. Meletus even agrees that he is knowledgeable in the improvement of the youth. So, Socrates asks Meletus to tell the judges who the improver is, to which Meletus cannot initially respond. Socrates then begins to prompt Meletus, asking him about the judges, the senators, and the audience and whether or not they improve or corrupt the youth and if it is all of them or portions. Meletus then goes on to declare Socrates the only man who corrupts the youth, with all other Athenians benefitting them.
Socrates uses this to begin his Horse Trainers Analogy. The comparison he makes is in the need for instruction of horses, which he is paralleling to the youth. He asks whether one man does horses harm and everyone else good. He then changes the question, asking if the opposite is true, that very few people help horses, those who specialize in training, and everyone else does them harm. Socrates answers his own question, rendering it rhetorical for the sake of argument. While Meletus says Socrates is the sole corruptor of the youth and everyone else does them good, Socrates uses the comparison to horses to show he does not believe it’s possible for him to be the sole corruptor. Socrates even goes as far as saying that having a sole corruptor would be a good for the youth, because everyone else would be for their benefit. He concludes that Meletus does not genuinely care about the youth with the lack of care even showing in the charges Meletus brings. Socrates does not think the claims Meletus made are reasonable.
Before the Unintentional Argument, Socrates begins another line of questioning to Meletus. He asks if it is better to live among bad citizens or good ones, and that good do good and bad do evil. Meletus agrees with him. He asks if people like bad things to happen to them, which Meletus denies. He asks if the allegation of corrupting the youth is intentional or unintentional corruption, which Meletus replies intentional. From there, Socrates moves to his point. He asserts that intentionally corrupting the youth is against his own self-interest as he would have to then live with the corrupted youth. If he lives among corrupted people, it is possible that they could harm him which is contrary to what Meletus agreed with him on in his line of questioning. Socrates says either he does not corrupt the youth or he does it accidentally, and either way its not the business of the law as the law does not recognize accidents. Socrates even suggests that Meletus should have come to him personally to let him know the accidental effects of his actions so he could change for the better. Instead of teaching him, Meletus brought him to court which is where people receive punishment. Socrates uses this to further illustrate his point that Meletus does not truly care about the youth, but instead seeks to punish him.
Argument
Horse Trainer Analogy
We will analyze the Horse Trainer Analogy first, utilizing the three standards for assessing an argument by analogy. The three standards are: the number of properties shared, the relevance of the properties shared, and whether there are relevant dissimilarities.
The first comparison that Socrates makes in the Horse Trainer Analogy is that both the youth and horses are in need of training. There is a similarity, but it is too weak to form a strong premise. This is a similarity between horses and children in that both of them would require training. However, the relevance of the training can be called into question. Horses are trained in certain specific techniques, most of all obedience and loyalty to their masters. In truth, horse training is a form of domestication. Horses are trained to follow their masters, or humans in a general sense, which also creates a form of dependence. Children are trained in the ways of society, but they are taught how to compose themselves in society rather than be led in society. In addition, the instruction of children involves more of a mental development than that of horses. Because of this, it is truly not a comparable type of training. The horses deal in obedience, where the children deal in information and ideas. In addition, Socrates speaks about the questions he poses, which could not be posed to horses. Both children and horses need training, but the types of training they need are different.
The second comparison is that trainer must be skilled in order to benefit those being trained. Like the first one, there is a parallel, but it is not strong enough to make a strong premise. This is a similarity in the training requirements of horses and children. The horse trainer must be experienced with horses in order to know the best way to train them and avoid injuring them as Socrates states. This knowledge is very physical, as training horses is a physical activity. In training children, the teacher must be knowledgeable in teaching in order to teach the students effectively. This comparison can be made, but there are more requirements for the teacher. The teacher must know the information they want to teach their students. There is a higher degree of skill required in teachers than in trainers.
The third comparison is that skilled trainers are few in number. This is not a good premise, because there’s no way for us to know how many of people of each occupation were in the society. While it could be true, this claim is founded on information we cannot verify. This is a similarity between the trainers and the teachers, with teachers referring to those who train the youth. However, it is hard to validate. We can follow it as an assumption that few people are skilled enough to train horses or knowledgeable enough to teach children, however these are still assumptions. Because it is based in an assumption that is not provable, we cannot truly use it to gauge the strength of the argument.
The next comparison is that the unskilled are many in number. This can be accepted as a premise. This is a similarity in that we can reasonably assume that the number of people trained in an occupation or vocation is smaller than those untrained. While like the previous statement it is also an assumption, this one is much more acceptable to follow. It is a logical assumption.
The next comparison is that the unskilled are harmful to those they influence.
This similarity is also one that can be accepted. Someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing can be expected to make mistakes. In training, these mistakes can be harmful to the horses. A poorly trained may attempt to push the horse harder than it can handle, resulting in fatigue or injury. An unskilled trainer could feed the horse the wrong foods, or even neglect proper grooming. There are multiple situations that could result in injury for the horses. In teaching, mistakes can be harmful to students. Students can go without learning things they need later on and be deficient. Students can learn things wrong and not realize that they don’t know. Especially when such knowledge will be necessary later, this is harmful to the student.
From this, we can count five similarities, two being acceptable for a premise, two being weak, and one that we cannot substantiate. There is also one dissimilarity that undercuts the strength of two comparisons: Horses are trained to be domesticated and subservient, where the youth are taught information they need to know, as well as the ways of society and how to conduct themselves. The type of training or teaching has very different demands, so different that they impact how similar teachers and trainers can be.
Overall, the Horse Trainer Analogy does succeed as an analogy. Some points are relatively weak, but most of the parallels are accurately drawn. The problem with it is that it does not directly relate to Socrates. The figure of the “teacher” in the analogy is certainly meant to represent him and allude to him, but the analogy does not directly include him and is therefore not a direct refutation of the charges against him.
To the original charge that Socrates corrupts the youth, the Horse Trainer Analogy has no direct statement against. Instead, it suggests that the “teacher” is the person best enabled to train the youth and as such would not be a corruptor of the youth. This is not direct. It does not flatly state that the teacher does not corrupt the youth because it is implied. Not only that, but it is not directly stated that Socrates is the teacher. While the analogy does imply that a teacher is necessary for the youth like a trainer is for horses, it raises the issue of what qualifies the teacher. Socrates neither states himself directly as the teacher nor offers his qualifications.
To the modified charge that Socrates is the sole corruptor of the youth the analogy is equally indirect in addressing. From analyzing the analogy, we understand Socrates goal of showing that it is more likely that the youth would have many corruptors and few teachers as opposed to the charge that there was one sole corruptor, him. While not directly in the analogy, Socrates states that the youth would be in a good place if there was one sole corruptor. We can assume this is because that would create an easy solution, getting rid of the sole problem. The problem with all of this is that it does not prove that he is one of the few teachers, or the sole teacher. Socrates gets us to see that it is possible that there are more people who can do harm than do good, but he never argues that he is one of the people who does good.
Unintentional argument
The premise “if he corrupts a man he has to live with, it is very likely he will be harmed by him” is a sound one. To evaluate possible scenarios with the youth corrupted, they would either be wanton and commit any wicked act against anyone, or, they would be loyal to Socrates and commit wicked acts for and with him. However, as the youth would have been corrupted, one or more of the youth he corrupted could experience greed and want to have greater than Socrates and eliminate him as competition, or experience jealousy and want to harm Socrates. These are just two likely scenarios, but it is safe to assume that a group of corrupted people could come back to harm him. In addition to these assumed scenarios, there are numerous scenarios in ancient history as well as modern day times in which arguably “corrupted” people committed harmful or malicious acts against those who taught them. One such example from ancient Europe is Tiberius and Caligula. Tiberius was a Roman emperor, who as he got older in age was known for his violent and indulgent practices. After he benefited from the death of Caligula’s father, he took Caligula in and raised him. Once Caligula was set to take over the throne, he saw to it that Tiberius died with the accounts suggesting that he starved Tiberius or even poisoning him.
Another example from history is Hippias of Athens. Hippias was a Tyrant in ancient Athens said to have murdered citizens and imposed harsh taxes. His father before him, one of the main teachers in any man’s life, was also a tyrant, Peisistratos. He took power when his father died suddenly.
Alexander the Great is another man who came to power when his father died “mysteriously.”
It is also important to note that Socrates is not arguing that harm will definitely come from corrupting the youth, but that there is a strong likelihood of harm coming to him from it. This is an outcome that he would not like to happen, so he is suggesting that he would not do something that could possibly cause him harm. The premise supports the conclusion, making it a sound argument.
This argument does not refute the original charge. It fails to do so because it creates the scenario in which Socrates could have unintentionally corrupted the youth. He demonstrates that it is not in his best interest to corrupt the youth, not that he didn’t corrupt the youth.
This argument does refute the modified charge, that Socrates is intentionally corrupting the youth. Socrates proves that he would not intentionally corrupt the youth because it is against his own best interest.
Conclusion
The purpose of this paper was to summarize and critically evaluate Socrates reply to the charge that he is a wrongdoer who corrupts the youth. In the summary, I relayed the charges against Socrates and his response to them. This includes lines of questioning to Meletus that Socrates used to outline his arguments in the Horse Trainers Analogy and Unintentional Argument. The Horse Trainer Analogy fails to prove that Socrates does not corrupt the youth, but the Intentional Argument demonstrates that he did not intentionally do so, if at all. In my argument, I worked through the Horse Trainer Analogy and showed how though it is a sound analogy, it fails to prove its intended point. I also worked through the Unintentional Argument and showed how it succeeded to prove its point. The Apology, though it failed to convince it’s intended audience, is still an excellent study in Socratic reasoning.