Intro
In his work Apology, Plato recounts the trial of his teacher Socrates, utilizing the “exact” words by Socrates in defense of himself. In addition to recounting the trial, Plato suggests that rather than having been condemned for his actions, Socrates should have been rewarded. Through my paper I will present and analyze Apology and Plato’s position. I aim to argue that although Socrates should not have been rewarded for his actions, he should not have been condemned either, as it was within his natural right (by philosophical principles such as Natural Law Theory) to disobey laws which he felt were unjust. However, it cannot be ignored that the work of Socrates has proven to have profound impacts on the minds of great thinkers who followed him.
Exegesis
Although entitled Apology, the speech delivered by Socrates is not an “apology” in the modern sense of the word. Rather, it comes from the Greek word “apologia,” which translates to a defense. In Apology, Socrates defends himself and his actions. He begins his speech stating that he possesses no experience with the law or court system; as such, he aims to speak honestly and directly in his appeal to the jury and defense of himself. He states that his behavior originates from a prophecy by the oracle at Delphi, where the oracle claimed that Socrates was the wisest of all men. However, the oracle did not proclaim Socrates the wisest in the way the men of Athens considered themselves to be wise. He proclaimed him so because unlike other men, Socrates recognized and acknowledged his own ignorance, knowing that he knows nothing. With this wisdom, Socrates doesn’t take himself extremely seriously, and possesses a humble kind of wisdom.
To spread this refreshing type of wisdom so foreign to his world, Socrates considered it his moral and philosophical obligation to interrogate the men considered to be “wise” in Athens. His methods consisted of identifying what the other man thinks he knows, and then scrutinizing and unpacking these aforementioned claims. Through this type of questioning, he exposed their ignorance, receiving praise from the youth of the community, but resentment from those he embarrassed. He credits this hatred and build up of prejudices from those affected people as the primary reason he was put on trial, including from men such as Meletus, Lycon, and Anytus. Because these people possessed great influence, affluence, and were persuasive, they were able to convince others to support them in their effort to put Socrates on trial.
Then, Socrates goes on to compare himself to a gadfly stinging the lazy horse that is Athens. In other words, he suggests that he is waking up the Athenian state and revitalizing their minds, lifting them from the fog of ignorance they have created for themselves. He argues that his actions, though alarming and frustrating to some, were actually virtuous and beneficial for society as a whole. At the conclusion of Apology, Socrates is found to be guilty by a very narrow margin. The jury asks Socrates to propose a penalty for his actions, to which he suggests that he should be honored and praised for his “service” to the state of Athens. More realistically, his other options were incredibly finite. He states that he is unable to pay a fine, as in order to pay it he would have to accept a loan, which in turn would be accepting guilt for actions that he did not consider criminal. Socrates would also not accept a sentence of exile; Athens was where he had always resided, and where he aimed to live in accordance to his divine command. Ultimately the jury rejects all suggestions, sentencing Socrates to death. He accepts the sentence, knowing that although he will be outrun by death, the people of Athens sentencing him to death are outrun by “wickedness,” which is to him a harder fate to live with.
Argument
The topic of the justness of Socrates’ final sentence is one which has been heavily debated and discussed by philosophers for centuries. Though I do not feel as though death was the appropriate sentence, I also do not feel so polarized as to say that praise or reward would have been justified, either. He should have been left to continue with his practices, as they proved to have a profound impact on the way others think about themselves, others and the world as a whole.
Socrates’ history of being patriotic to the Athenian state is a fact that cannot be ignored. He was known to be a law-abiding citizen for the vast majority of his life, with minimal interactions with law enforcement. He serves as a soldier and remained at his post under life-threatening circumstances, thus clearly having demonstrated his dedication to Athens.
Despite his history of moral uprightness and patriotism, some feel that Socrates should have been punished, as technically he broke the laws of Athens. However, there exist many philosophical principles which support my view that Socrates should not have been punished. For instance, according to the Natural Law Theory, natural law consists of principles of eternal law, governing the behavior of all with reason and free will. According to Aquinas, the primary principle of this theory is that good and evil are derived from the rational nature of human beings; thus, good and evil are universal and objective. Further, Aquinas was able to apply his theory on natural law to legal matters. He states that “Every human law has just so much of the nature of law as is derived from the law of nature. But if in any point it deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of the law.” (ST I-II, Q.95, A.II). By analyzing this remark and following its logic, since the law Socrates was convicted of breaking was unjust, it was not really a law at all. Therefore he should not have been punished, let alone put to death for his actions, since he believed the law went against nature. Additional backing to support my view that Socrates should not have been punished can be found by looking to the work of John Austin, an influential early legal positivist. Austin endorsed the idea that legal validity of a norm does not necessarily depend on whether the norm conforms to morality. The theory also outlines that there are moral laws which transcend all things, including government. By this logic, too, Socrates was right to go against the laws he found to be morally unjust, and should not have received a punishment for attempting to maintain morality.
Although I do not believe Socrates should have been condemned for his actions, I also do not feel reward would be appropriate. When Socrates questioned the people of Athens, he did not do it with the intention of an external reward; he did it out of pure curiosity and with a thirst for knowledge and further search of truth. He wished to learn more about the world around him, and sought to do what he thought was right and divine. People should not be rewarded for doing what they feel is right; if this were the case, the majority of people would be deserving of reward for doing what they are supposed to do in their daily lives. Further, with rewards can sometimes come a sense of complacency. If rewarded, who knows if others after him would wish to expand upon his thoughts? Perhaps philosophers such as Plato or Aristotle, both of whom built on and were inspired by the work of Socrates, would just feel as though there was nothing left to figure out. Also, part of the reason Socrates’ work was so significant was because it caused upset in Athens. In most aspects of life, the things which are of great significance are provocative and even uncomfortable. If no one were to be provoked by the work of Socrates, then it begs the question of whether or not his work would be considered as groundbreaking as it is deemed today? The answer is no, it would not be. Because it was groundbreaking and went unrewarded, we know that it was imperative to the development of the minds of Athens and other philosophers.
Objection
A potential objection to my argument could be that condemning Socrates to death was justified and appropriate. This argument does have substantial backing to support it, and there are many people who feel this way. On a technical level, Socrates was breaking the law, and guilty of “impiety” and “corrupting the youth.” These people also argue that the charges Socrates was confronted were with good intention for the common good of Athens, and not out of malice or revenge. Additionally, supporters of this view claim that the charge was in the public interest because Socrates questioned the legitimacy of many deities; thus, citizens of Athens felt these events to be evidence that the gods were offended by Socrates’ actions. With this in mind, not only were Socrates’ charges justified, but extremely necessary as well. Many Athenians viewed Socrates’ permanent removal from the community as the only way to fully cleanse society.
Though a valid view on the situation of Socrates’ trial and ultimate jury ruling, I do not agree with this view. Firstly, I feel that Natural Law Theory fully supports that Socrates was right to disobey the law; if a law is morally corrupt, it is within the natural right of man to go against the law. Further, I have a hard time accepting the notion that convicting Socrates was in the “best interest” of Athens, and that people legitimately felt endangered because of his practices. Frankly speaking, these are all just excuses to mask the true reason behind his conviction, which was that the superior men of Athens were threatened by Socrates’ actions and interrogations because he made them feel ignorant and embarrassed. Also, to say that he was corrupting the youth is a far cry from the truth; the youths were the ones who actually learned from Socrates, and were enthusiastic about his teachings that broadened their minds.
Conclusion
Plato’s Apology brings the trial of Socrates to center stage and fully engages the reader in Socrates’ defense of himself. I conclude that he should have neither been condemned nor rewarded for his actions. Though many people support the final sentencing of Socrates to death, I do not feel that this sentence was appropriate or necessary, as it was within Socrates’ philosophical right to go against the laws he found to be morally unjust. On the other hand, he should not have been rewarded as he suggests, for he did nothing deserving of reward- Socrates was simply trying to figure out more about the world around him, not looking for some external form of validation. If not for Socrates’ provocative actions for his time, we would not see the tangible impact he’s had on the minds of the philosophers who followed him and their works we study today.