Paste your essay in here…Morality in the Face of Death
Death is inevitable. However, few things inspire fear as much as death. The fear of death is so great that self-preservation, such as laws on self-defense and standing your ground, are part of mainstream laws in the current society. What are the requirements form an individual in the face of death? A soldier is supposed to show fearlessness and acceptance of his fate. In all other cases, failing to challenge the cause of death is immoral. For example, suicide is a shameful act. The implication is that it is immoral for an individual to fail to give himself or herself a proper chance of living. In this regard, trial of Socrates is interesting because it shows a defiant man in the face of death. The most compelling aspect of the trial is that it establishes his bravery and the sacred nature of his course, educating the youth. In his case, he attempted to create an enduring legacy. The trial shows that the impending death makes self-preservation the only consideration.
Socrates suggests that the jury should be ashamed of the thinking he would use his oratory powers to deceive them . Socrates was accounting for a warning to the jury that he, Socrates, was a gifted speaker with the capacity to mislead them into making the wrong decisions. Why does he say he does not intend to mislead them? What if misleading the jury was the only way to secure a not-guilty verdict and thus secure his life? The discussion suggests that Socrates is willing to accept the verdict from the jury. At the same time, he is challenging the existing notions of the jury, a popular tool of lowering inhibitions and making the jury responsive to his points. For this reason, Socrates was motivated by self-preservation. In a way, the attempt to secure his legacy of fearlessness and impractical character is a form of self-preservation.
Socrates claims he would speak the truth in light of the possible death sentence . His claim resonates with the principles of a just society in the work of Rousseau. According to Rousseau, a just individual or society is foremost truthful and morally upright, hence the challenge to Geneva . In this case, the claim that he would use the truth to convince the jury is supposed to show the jury that he is aware of the existing laws and is unwilling to break them. It is apparent that he showed courage. At the same time, Socrates was to secure a legacy of one of the greatest philosophers in the world. His legacy has continued to shape philosophy to the present. For this reason, he may have been attempting to preserve his legacy, an aspect of self-preservation. For this reason, it was selfish for him to consider the impact of a legacy as opposed to continued influence to the society at the time. The preservation of a legacy suggests that in the presence of eminent death, self-preservation replaces all forms of moral considerations.
Aristophanes, a play writer, claims that a man called Socrates could perform miracles like walking on the air. Socrates defends himself by showing that such clams exaggerate his position and create biases against him in the society . The statement is a response to the first charge against him. Socrates was charged with believing in falsehood and attempting to teach the beliefs to others. Carl Marx is opposed to the influence of the rich in the society. He suggests that the masses are directed in such a way as to influence the interests of the rich . In this case, it is apparent that Socrates is under the opinion that the rich individuals in the city, in the trial, target him even going as far as mentioning their names. Socrates attempts to appeal to the association of the jury; he is suggesting that the rich individuals want a continuation of the current state of ignorance because it is beneficiary to them. On the other hand, a rowdy youth, armed with the belief in new justice systems, have the capacity to overthrow the rich in the city. Note that the inequality resonates with the aim of proposing the communist manifesto by Carl Marx . Here, he is securing a legacy as defender of the weak. He is showing that he is fearless in the face of death provided the intentions of his actions, educating the youth, is exposed.
The morality of attacking the accusers does not paint a good picture on Socrates. Chaerephon started problems by inquiring as to the wisest man from an oracle . From the results, Socrates attempts to establish the characteristics of wisdom and consequently attracts the hatred of prominent men in the city. Socrates claims that the hatred, not his actions, are part of the reason for his prosecution . Attacking the characters carries the theme of establishing the aim of his work. The action suggests he is under the impression that specific individuals are responsible for his fall. In the same way advertisements shapes the perceptions of consumers, the pay is supposed to have shaped the perception of Athenians. For this reason, there is a strong case for maintaining personal legacy in the face of danger. It is possible that the trial was merely one of the ways to kill him. For example, he claims that the fear of death, in the trail or in any other way, shall not dissuade him from his quest.
The concept of following the laws of the state and the directives of the gods is part of the allegations against Socrates. He challenges one of his accusers to a public debate. The accuser, Meletus, is unable to follow the logic . In this case, the easiest outcome is a visible capacity by Socrates to use superior logic, relevant in the contemporary culture. However, he fails to apply the same logical considerations inwards. For example, by imposing the rationale of deduction on the Athenians, he is inducing a capacity to challenge the state. It follows that application of the same logical principles would mean that he, Socrates, was polluting the minds of the youth with ideologies that created independence . for this reason, he was guilty of crimes against the state. The lack of morality in this case is the inability of Socrates to apply the principles of deduction to himself. In addition, he has already claimed he will not use his oratory skills on the jury. Such an application, he had suggested, would be immoral. The outcome of the trial is that faced with the possibility of imminent death, it is impossible for an individual to show moral consideration. The necessity of self-preservation means that all application will be in the interest of the self.
Socrates does not fear death. He uses his time to calculate possibilities for improving his society. In the text, after the discussion with Meletus, Socrates claims that the fear of death should never be greater than the consideration for the right and wrong . The implication is that the possibility of death does not define a man of virtue. Instead, the man has to be defined by his capacity to consider the moral implications of his work. Socrates is suggesting that he does not fear the possibility of dying in the trial. In fact, he is suggesting that if he is acquainted, he will not stop living the way he does because of the threat of death. Rather, he will continue his teachings because he believes that the continuation is moral. Aristotelian ethics would suggest that the action, complete oblivion to self-safety, is an expression of courage. On the other hand, the action resembles self-sabotage . For example, a soldier riding into battle with no chance of winning does not practice virtue. Rather, the action is excessive .
The manner of narration offers supporting points for the suggestion that Socrates may have been unable to follow moral guidelines. The intent is to vindicate the master, Socrates, after his death. Plato would have experienced a need to portray the master in the best possible light, hence the possibility of inaccuracy in the depiction of the last speech by Socrates . Perceptions of an individual are very important. Facing death without fear is supposed to be the mark of true bravery. For example, soldiers dying in battle are heroes because they die for something they believe in. for this reason, the light in which an individual is painted in their dying moments endures eternally. It secures personal legacy, the concept of immortality if ideas. Socrates has made everlasting contributions to the human society. His contributions come from his introduction to deductive reasoning and his definitions of the justice and morality. The concept of relative morality comes from application of teachings from popular texts such as the republic. On the apology, the same theme is apparent. He uses careful deductions to prove his innocence. However, it is important to note that however convincing the narration was, Plato constructed it. It is a representation of his recollections of his masters. In other words, the narration is a depiction of the idealized reaction to impending death, bravery and fearlessness. While an individual may lack the capacity to face death in the depicted manner, there is a tendency for the reaction to death shaping individual perceptions.
It is apparent that Socrates had a strong conviction. He believed he has selected the best path for his life. He also believed that he owed the city an appearance in the trial. He uses the trail, rather than to argue for the merits of his innocence, but to argue for the merits of a just society. His attack on the rich, from suggesting lack of objectivity in the jury to naming prominent individuals, shows that he perceives lack of justice in the richness of few individuals in his society. For this reason, he attempts to create a legacy rather than secure his freedom. Securing a legacy had to be the most important element of the defense because a legacy would ensure continuity. For this reason, his trail depicts the presence of aspects of self-preservation even in the greatest individuals in the face of imminent death.