The Role Of Justice In Plato's Apology Of Socrates

Athens is a major Greek city-state in European history. It was a great center of cultural and intellectual development, and thus home to philosophers. Socrates and Pericles, two of these philosophers, had polarizing opinions about the city-state and its citizens. While Pericles chooses to praise the Athenian citizen, Socrates criticizes Athens’ people. Pericles gave his opinion at a funeral during the first battles of the Peloponnesian War, while Socrates gave his during the trial that ultimately led to his death. The Athenian city-state has become a model for today’s systems of government and a hearth for western philosophy, so Pericles’ opinion seems to be the one that is more accurate.

The Apology is a seemingly misleading title. If your teacher spoke Greek, you too would learn that our word apology is actually derived from the Greek word apologia; meaning “in defense of.” Therefore, Socrates does not beg for forgiveness, rather justifies his profession. The Apology is his chance to “protest” against the authorities and make them listen to his side. Piece by piece, he dissects the charges against him. By doing so, he irritates the jurors. This is why the Apology seems to some proof of Socrates’ disrespect. When the vote came in, Socrates was declared guilty by 280 of the 500 jurors. Socrates is then given the chance to suggest a worthy punishment for himself. Most convicted persons would use this time to plea for their lives and families; Socrates had something else in mind. He says that they should reward him, as they do for the athletes, rather than punish him. The jurors came back and condemn him to death. The jurors were so incensed, even more votes shifted against him this time. Socrates does not break down and plea for his life. He simply thanks the jurors that stood behind him, and asks the others to open their minds more in the future. Socrates tells his audience “ a life

The Melians, contrarilly, see justice as grounded in fairness. They contend that action based in reason is the true definition of justice. “There is every advantage in your not destroying a universal benefit, but that at all times there be fairness and justice for those in danger,” (Thuc.,V, 90). This belief in abstinence from aggression without cause is what defines the fundamental differences in the Athenian’s and the Melian’s philosophies. As a neutral state, Melos remained impartial up until it was confronted by Athens, and it is this confrontation which violates the Melian definition of justice. Having not been harmed by

In the Apology Socrates is a very simple man he is Plato’s favorite character based on his personality of appearance. To convey his ideas about honesty and rightness. The peculiar of a method applied in Apology is about an argument which Socrates used to expressed by Plato in The Apology (Steven 29p) uses to defend himself in the course of a court-martial. Plato’s Apology is an example of how Socrates speech makes at the trial in which he is charged with not recognizing the gods recognized by the city, The complaint of Socrates is based on fear people of the man’s thinking which inspires the youth by original ideas and exposure of the ignorance and corruption in the unawareness and dishonesty in the upper circles of the state. Socrates

In this reading Plato tells the story of Socrates and his trial which ultimately lead to his death sentence. Socrates was a 70 year old man at peace with his own mortality yet willing to face his accusers with an almost definite possibility of death to maintain his own integrity and beliefs and morality. He fully understood from the beginning of his trial what the sentence handed down would be yet on a level of honor and courage not seen in abundance in modern society he maintained his stance and delivered a compelling and convincing argument. He openly stated that he knew his actions had offended Meletus and

The Athenians believed they had been wronged and that “the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must” (CCW 57). The Melian Dialogue is a commentary on the impact of power hungry nations and how a haughty approach is often unnecessary and leads to conflicts that could otherwise be avoided. The independent variable is the domination sought after by acquisitive unions such as the Athenians. The dependent variable is the war and tyranny that can result from hostility between such prideful nations. Furthermore, the theory that amity equals weakness is presented in The Melian Dialogue by the Athenians. The Athenians respond to the Melians request for neutrality by stating that “your hostility cannot so much hurt us as your friendship will be an argument to our subjects of our weakness” (CCW 57). According to the Athenians, equality represented impotence and vulnerability. The independent variable is the superiority necessary to prove strength and power. The dependent variable is the way in which other nations perceived the Athenians regarding their capability and vehemence.

Plato’s account of Socrates’ defense against charges of corrupting the youth and heresy, reveal the ancient teacher’s view of justice as fairness and support of rule of law. In the Apology, Socrates faces a moral dilemma: to either accept his punishment for crimes he did not commit or to accept the assistance of his friends and escape death by the hand of the state. His choice to accept death in order to maintain rule of law reveals his belief of justice. He beliefs his punishment to be just not because he committed the crimes but because his sentence came through a legal process to which he consented. By sparing his life, he would weaken the justice system of Athens which he values above his own existence. This difference between the two men’s beliefs regarding justice draws the sharpest contrast in their views of effective leadership and government.

Plato’s Apology is the story of the trial of Socrates, the charges brought against him and his maintaining of his own innocence throughout the process. At the onset of the trial, Socrates appears to challenging the charges, which included corrupting the youth, challenging belief in the gods that were accepted and reveled by the State, and introducing a new religious focus, but also belittles his own significance and suggesting that he will not attempt to disprove that he participated in the actions maintained by the court. In essence, Socrates appears almost self-effacing, and his defense surprises even his accuser, Meletus. But by the end of the Apology, Socrates becomes almost a different person,

Written by the Greek historian Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War is one that tells the story of the war (431-404 BC) which divided the Greek world between Athens and its allies and Lacedaemon. The Melian Dialogue presents two sides and two perspectives that of the Melians neutrality and that of the Athenians’ might. By Thucydides juxtaposing the Athenian’s position to that of the Melians, there is a clear conclusion of which side actions are tactically and morally acceptable. One would argue that the Athenians are immoral for violently plundering the Melian territory because they had the power to do so. However, given the circumstance of trying to defend their empire due to the imbalance of forces, the Athenian actions are not

According to the majority of the jury members of Athens, Socrates is a corruption to the youth, doer of evil and does not agree with the gods of his people. In the Apology, written by Plato these are the assumptions and accusations Socrates is held in court for. In court, he is faced with what most men fear, being wrongly accused leading to the death sentence. Socrates argues and strives to prove that he has no fear of being hated, being accused of serious crimes, being threatened with punishment, or being put to death.

Socrates was a pompous man who believed that he was wiser than most, if not all, Athenian men of his time. He is also credited as one of the fathers of western philosophy, his own philosophy revolving around the welfare of one’s soul and reflecting on what the good life was. He was told by an oracle that he was the wisest of men and spent a great deal of time trying to prove it false, he decided that he was considered wise for accepting that he knew nothing, and never claimed to know anything that he questioned. In Plato’s text “Apology” Socrates is depicted as a man who was arrogant, hypercritical of others, and fixed on his ways no matter the consequences. He had the qualities of a man who saw no error in what he was doing because he

   In any case of law, when considering truth and justice, one must first look at the validity of the court and the system itself.  In Socrates' case, the situation is no different.  One may be said to be guilty or innocent of any crime, but guilt or innocence is only as valid as the court it is subjected to.  Therefore, in considering whether Socrates is guilty or not, it must be kept in mind the norms and standards of Athens at that time, and the validity of his accusers and the crimes he allegedly committed.  Is Socrates guilty or innocent of his accusations?

In philosophy class this semester we spoke a lot about Socrates and his trial. We were required to read the dialogue ‘Apology’ by Plato. The ‘Apology’ Dialogue is what Plato recorded during the speech Socrates gave to the court defending himself against the charges of "corrupting the young, and by not believing in the gods in whom the city believes” these two were the main charges, but underneath that there were also other significant charges such as being considered an antidemocratic or pro-Spartan, sophistry, and being lampooned by Aristophanes in the comedy “clouds”. "Apology" in this sense has the meaning of speaking in defense of ones beliefs or actions. The trial is usually categorized into two interpretations which are: Socrates as a Martyr and Socrates as an Antidemocratic. The first interpretation which says Socrates trial and death was Socrates acting as a martyr; that interpretation is considered more “traditional” and “standard” compared to the ‘radical’ interpretation that stated that Socrates was Antidemocratic.

In Plato’s The Republic and The Apology, the topic of justice is examined from multiple angles in an attempt to discover what justice is, as well as why living a just life is desirable. Plato, writing through Socrates, identifies in The Republic what he thought justice was through the creation of an ideal city and an ideal soul. Both the ideal city and the ideal soul have three components which, when all are acting harmoniously, create what Socrates considers to be justice. Before he outlines this city and soul, he listens to the arguments of three men who hold popular ideas of the period. These men act to legitimize Socrates’ arguments because he finds logical errors in all of their opinions. In The Apology, a different, more down-to-Earth, Socrates is presented who, through his self-defense in court, reveals a different, even contradictory, view of the justice presented in The Republic. In this paper, the full argument of justice from The Republic will be examined, as well as the possible inconsistencies between The Republic and The Apology.

To the early Greeks and Romans, justice is a form of vengeance—it stems from the belief that if one is wronged, he has the right to punish his wrongdoers. This “eye for an eye” and self-serving mentality later evolved as the Athenians adopted a democracy. Rather than equate justice with revenge, Athenians began believing in the idea of justice with judgement. From this perspective, justice is determined by holding trials where several hundred Athenian citizens decide an accused man’s fate—what is just is what the majority believe serves the public interest of Athens.