After Reading Socrates.docx

After reading Socrates' Apology on pages 21-36 from the textbook and reviewing the

PowerPoint discussing the Apology, learning his fate, how would you have evaluated the moral actions of Socrates, had you been a citizen voting on that fateful day in Athens? Would you vote guilty or not guilty? Why? Cite relevant evidence from the readings and the PowerPoint to support your claims.

As a citizen of Athens and a voter of whether or not Socrates is guilty of his crime of corrupting the youth, “inquiries into things below the earth and in the sky”, and denying the gods, I would vote not guilty. My reasoning of doing this is because Socrates was able to prove his innocent by providing concrete evidential support and a counter argument against his accuser. For example, one of his argument to prove his innocent of corrupting the youth is his statement, “The young who follow me of their own accord…And they themselves often imitate me, and in turn they attempt to examine others…Thereupon, those examined by them are angry at me, not at themselves, and they say that Socrates is someone most disgusting and that he corrupts the young.” The youth may inmate his action but are not corrupted, because they only examined wise people of what they should already know. However, the people they examined appear to know little to nothing, so, instead of telling the truth of them knowing nothing, they place a crime against Socrates for the corruption of the youth, a crime he did not commit and should not be accused of. To follow up, Socrates continues to defend himself by proving the reasons on why he is not denying the gods or “inquiries into things below the earth and in the sky”. He stated, “Therefore if I do believe in daimons, as you say, and if, on the one hand, daimons are gods of some sort, then this would be what I say you are riddling and jesting about, when you say that I do not believe in gods, and again that I believe in gods, since in fact I do believe in daimons.”

His argument is, if someone believe in gods’ creation and gods made it, then they must believe in gods. Making the argument of Socrates denying the gods invalid. Although this may be a time period where it is strictly prohibited of questioning the gods and the belief that is already set forth. What Socrates did was merely try to understand why the gods told him he was the wisest man by questioning other people that was deem to be wise at that time to prove that he isn’t the wisest. They became angry as he was noticing that they are not as smart as they may seem. This lead to a trial of hatred rather than a trial of his crime. That is why Socrates is innocent of his crime and is not guilty.