The influence of Socrates on the development of the philosophy could hardly be underestimated since his views provided a foundation for many philosophers to dwell upon. In this essay, one of the most fundamental works by Socrates, The Apology, will be analyzed with the aim to understand the Socrates’ attitude toward contemporary opinions on morality, the fairness of the law, and the moral legitimacy of avoiding the death penalty.
It is important to notice that the word “apology” in the context of the book’s title does not bear the conventional meaning of being sorry or apologizing for something. The original meaning of that Greek word is “explanation,” and it is a very distinct difference. Socrates was brought into the trial on the grounds of two general accusations – (1) his impiety against the gods in whom the people of Athens believed, and (2) the corruption of the youth, which was caused by Socratic philosophy. Socrates responds to these indictments not from the position of a guilty person, but as an individual who was misunderstood and even slandered. Therefore, The Apology is the explanation of the essential features of Socratic philosophy, combined with the dispute with Socrates’ accusers. It is one of the principal points for consideration because it provides a more precise perception of the issues that will be analyzed in this essay. The composition of the book should be studied to give a proper context to this analysis.
The Apology is divided into three parts (non-equal in length): the most extended part is the legal self-defense speech of Socrates, which is followed by the jury’s verdict, and the announcement of the sentence by the court. There are three chief prosecutors against whom Socrates speaks: Anytus, Meletus, and Lycon (Plato 8). Each of those people represents a social group, offended by Socratic philosophy: Anytus is a socially prominent politician, Meletus represents the creative, intelligent class of scholars and poets, and Lycon is the representant of professional rhetoricians. However, the only one, who was involved in the dialog during the self-defense speech is Meletus, because he accepted the cross-examination by Socrates. It is evident that Socrates disputes with the contemporary society as a whole, as his prosecutors represent the common social layers of Athens. It is now time to observe the matters, of which Socrates was accused.
As it was already mentioned, there were two primary sets of accusations: the Socrates’ impiety against the pantheon of Greek gods and the corruption of the Athenian youth. As Rueda observes, “Socrates points out that he thinks such accusations are due to certain things that had been said about him a long time ago” (40). The philosopher says that the accusations against him were already formulated by the comic poet Aristophanes; hence, the trial is beyond legitimacy. In his play The Clouds, written 23 years before the trial, Aristophanes portrayed Socrates as a proponent of atheism and sophistry. Socrates rejects the accusation of impiety, saying that he obeys the Oracle at Delphi, who told that there is no man wiser than him. However, “while he was convinced that what the oracle said about him was true, he was puzzled as to what it meant, since he was aware that he lacked wisdom” (Taylor 109). Therefore, Socrates was in search of anyone wiser than him, and that is why he practiced his philosophy.
At this point of the essay, it is time to touch upon the first issue, which was introduced by the thesis: must the popular opinions about morality be heeded by an individual? In the previous paragraph, the brief explanation of Socrates’ attitude toward practicing his philosophy was given. It brings out the second accusation against him: the moral corruption of the youth. This issue is primarily elaborated during the dialog between Socrates and Meletus, in which Socrates accuses his prosecutor by stating that Meletus is indifferent to the ideas and people about which he claims to care. On the opposite, Socratic approach to morality is expressed in profound concern about the ethics and moral conduct. Later in his speech, Socrates asks his prosecutors why are they preoccupied with their wealth and reputation, but none of them are concerned with understanding the truth and the moral perfection. Also, he claims that he must practice his philosophy and to expose his fellow citizens to higher ethical standards, even if he had to be accused of it and brought to trial.
It is a significant aspect of Socratic philosophy because it serves as the foundation of his doctrine. Socrates did not consider himself to be a wise man, but he was a man, who felt an obligation to convey the message about moral standards. He was continually interrogating himself and other people about the truth because he considered it to be the most critical goal of any human being. This search for truth brought him to trial, and, later, to death, but in any of those moments, he was not hesitant about his beliefs. Therefore, Socrates demonstrated the importance of the high moral code, to which any individual should adhere. Thus, it could be stated that, according to Socrates, a person should not heed popular opinions on morality, especially if they contradict with his ethical and moral code.
However, this elaboration brings up the second issue of that essay since they are connected. It could be formulated as a question: does Socrates perceive the laws under which he is convicted as fair and equitable? First of all, Socrates claims that he is obedient to both human and divine authority. By “human authority” he means the governors of the Athens, including his accusers, because they are socially and politically prominent individuals. Nevertheless, Socrates states that in the case when human and divine authorities are in conflict, one should obey the divinity since it is the supreme power over humanity. As it was already mentioned, the philosopher considers himself to be obedient to the words of the Oracle at Delphi in following his path, and the Oracle is obviously a divine authority. Therefore, he perceives the trial as the superiority of human power over the divine one; hence, he does not consider his accusations righteous. However, he is still an obedient citizen of Athens, and it is the reason why he does not try to avoid the trial. The profound morality of Socrates is expressed by this decision because he obeys the legal power of his city, even though he serves the higher authority.
Accordingly, the final question arises: is it inappropriate for Socrates to avoid the death penalty, to which he was sentenced by the court? It is essential to observe that the philosopher was given the opportunity to be exiled from the Athens. This procedure is known under the term “ostracism”. It implied that Socrates would be expelled from Athens for ten years, and later he could come back. Then why did he decided not to choose this option? His decision might seem unreasonable, but, actually, it is quite simple to explain. The ostracism in Athens was the expression of the popular contempt and disapproval. Therefore, if Socrates chose this options, he would implicitly admit the fallacy of his philosophy. However, it was mentioned before that he perceived the duty and obedience to the moral code as the superior virtue. The death penalty, in Socrates’ opinion, was the only possible way to corroborate his philosophy in action. He claimed that “a man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying”, meaning that he had a goal, which is superior to saving his life (Plato 15). The truth had the critical importance, and Socrates chose to follow his path even when he faced the possibility of death.
Now it is possible to overview and reinforce the critical points of the essay. First of all, Socrates was brought into the court because he was practicing the philosophy that offended the Athenian citizens. Further, even though he obeyed the authority and was present at the trial, he did not retreat from his beliefs because he considered that his moral and ethical code is superior to the accusations. Finally, despite that he was sentenced to death, Socrates did not surrender, and in his final words, he reinforced his philosophical beliefs. In conclusion, one could say that Socrates was the first philosopher with an articulated moral code, and his example served as the foundation for numerous philosophers to develop their doctrines.
Works Cited
Plato. The Apology of Socrates. Translated by Benjamin Jowett, Dutch Renaissance Press LLC., 2014.
Rueda, Carlos R. Gutiérrez. “The Wisdom in the Apology of Plato.” Philosophy Study, vol. 7, no. 1, 2017, pp. 39-43.
Taylor, Christopher. “The Ethics of Plato’s Apology.” Ancient Ethics, edited by Jörg Hardy and George Rudebusch, V & R unipress, 2014, pp. 107-119.