Socrates Corrupting The Youth example essay topic

The main argument in The Apology by famous ancient Greek philosopher Plato is whether, notorious speaker and philosopher Socrates is corrupting the youth by preaching ungodly theories and teaching them unlawful ideas that do harm to individuals and society. In his words Socrates quoted the prosecution's accusation against him: "Socrates is guilty of corrupting the minds of the young, and of believing in supernatural things of his own invention instead of the gods recognized by the state". 1 Further Socrates consistently introduces tediously compiled number of examples to provide valid and sound arguments to prove that he is innocent of the charges brought up against him to the court. The first approach that Socrates uses to prove his innocence's is he uses a practical comparison between horses and all living and artificial things "Take the case of horses; do you believe that those who improve them make up the whole of the mankind and that there is only one person who has a bad effect on them? Or is the truth just the opposite that the ability to improve them belongs to one person or to very few persons, who are horse-trainers, whereas most people, if they have to do with horses and make use of them, do them harm". 2 The premises in this quote are: 1.

Horse trainers do improve horses. 2. Those who use the horses do not enhance them. 3. There are more horse owners than the horse trainers. 4.

Therefore, the improvements come from a small group of specialist, while the corruption comes from most people. 5. What is true for horses is true for all living and artificial things. The conclusion that can be made about these premises is that Socrates is not the one who is corrupting the youth because he is a specialist in this field. In addition, the real corrupt ors of the youth are the greater population of Athens because they are not specialist on teaching wisdom. What important about this conclusion is that even though Socrates uses horses as an example he manages to apply his example to all beings and prove his case that he is innocent of the charges.

The second example that Socrates makes is that people that don't care about the youth are the ones who are really corrupting them. "It is quite clear that by now, gentlemen, that Meletus, as I said before, has never paid the slightest attention to this subjects. However I invite you to tell us, Meletus, in what sense you make out that I corrupt the minds of the young". 3 The premises of this quote are: 1. Meletus has no concern for the youth. 2.

Meletus who shows no concern for the youth cannot charge another person of corrupting the youth 3. Since Meletus, charges Socrates with corruption of the youth, though he cannot charge him. The conclusion from these premises is that Meletus is contradicting himself, and Socrates is innocent. The last point that Socrates makes to prove that he is not guilty is he says that even if he was corrupting the youth he was doing it unwillingly. "Either I have not a bad influence, or it is unintentional; so in either case what you claim is false". 4 The premises for this argument are: 1.

Socrates either corrupts the youth intentionally or unintentionally. 2. It is possible for someone to corrupt the youth unintentionally, then he is not guilty. 3. Since Socrates was corrupting the youth unintentionally he is not guilty of the charges and should not be punished. So when you take all the conclusions to the approaches you can combine them into one argument.

1. Specialists are not responsible for corrupting the youth. 2. People who contradict themselves make false charges.

3. People who unintentionally corrupt the youth are not guilty. 4. Since Socrates is a specialist in his field, and did corrupt the youth unintentionally, and was falsely accused then he is not guilty of the charges by law and should not be punished. The final conclusion that Socrates makes is that unintentional alleged wrongdoing should not be punished. All the above demonstrate a remarkably strong defense presented by Socrates.

He is focused on his self-defense and relaxed at the same time in his defense speech. I think that Socrates was a very clever man. Great thinker and speaker, he proved this case of not being guilty in many ways, which is always a good defense strategy. Socrates like a skillful lawyer has built a strong multilevel defense case against harsh allegations he faced in the hostile courtroom. The main argument is logically valid because Socrates brilliantly uses his deep knowledge of the subject. This knowledge, coupled with his long life experience present his case containing all true premises that make logically possible only for true conclusion about Socrates innocence.

As I've mentioned above, Socrates did not corrupt the youth, he also cannot be punished for unintentional wrongdoing if any has been done, and he is falsely accused. All that makes conclusion about his innocence true. There is no way for logically possible false conclusion because all of the premises are consistent and true. The main argument is sound because it is valid and has all true premises. The chain of consistent arguments and conclusions logically supports Socrates goal of showing that his accusers are wrong and he is innocent.