After analyzing many different texts, it seems as if Socrates could be innocent and guilty at the same time. It’s difficult trying to figure out what Socrates really believed because there are many different things for people to read. I personally think that Socrates does not believe in the gods of Athens but does believe in a higher power. Because of the oracle, Socrates says, “I do not have the leisure to engage in public affairs to any extent, nor indeed to look after my own, but I live in great poverty because of my service to the god” (23b). The only thing I don’t agree with after reading this information is that he corrupted the youth.
Introduction “The wisest of men is he who has realised that, in respect of wisdom, he is really worthless.” I will argue in this essay that the Athenians were not right and unreasonable to sentence Socrates to death because their reasoning was based on arbitrary grounds and displayed an unjust endeavour to eliminate a potential threat to Greek society. However, the procedural aspect of law enforcement implemented by the Athenians in executing Socrates were impartial and worthy of respect and as a result led to the obedience to the sovereignty of law and the ultimate capitulation to execution. As a result of the aforementioned arguments, I will argue that the pursuit of truth and justice was highly favoured by the youth that followed Socrates’ which indefinitely inspired political life after his death as his actions was a service to the gods. Historical background In 399 B.C, Socrates was convicted by 500 Athenian jurors for impiety and corrupting the youth and was executed. Socrates lived during the year of 404 B.C where Athens had surrendered its hegemony to Sparta, ending the Peloponnesian War (431-404 B.C), and Socrates’ associates Critias and Charmides, along with 28 other non-democratic Athenians, were installed as Athens’ new governors by the victorious Spartans.
Why did Socrates not plead for his life? What are the ideals for which he was willing to die? Do you think they are worth dying for? Socrates did not plead for his life because he valued justice and truth more than his life. He rejected his punishments for him because they contradicts to his ideals of truth and justice.
Conversely, in pain is found certain benefits or pleasure as Socrates calls it. A practical example is Socrates himself finding relief after he was removed from his bonds. Socrates offers the view that every philosopher needs to be excited about the prospect of death. After offering this opinion though Socrates is quick to point out that it is wrong for man to take his own life. To Socratres man did not own his life, rather, the gods did.
To be able survive the pass of the times and even contribute to society thought the memories of other, Socrates –and any other that may accomplish this, I should say- have to be an outstanding human being. And according to Plato’s accounting of the happening, this innocent man was offer the chance to survive his unfair conviction escaping from prison, and keep giving his doctrine to the others, but refuse to do so. Which brings us to the logical questioning: why not? Why innocent men positively choose to honor an unfair trail and to die in consequence? Why to accept to leave his live in such of unnatural way?
His stance is against this proposition and feels Philonous would agree with him. However Philonous disagrees and a battle of wits ensues in which Philonous systematically destroys Hylas’s views of materialism. Philonous spends the rest of the Dialogues making the case that his idealist view is the most commonsensical view in the world. His goal is to prove that, not only is his theory simpler and better supported by the evidence, but it is even immune to
Socrates was genuinely worried about why the young men were so disappointing. Socrates' young students had been a particular disappointment to him. If Socrates could figure out exactly how the fathers had failed to properly educate their sons, he could save the city and restore Athens to its former glory. Socrates’ interesting idea was that human excellence was really a kind of knowledge. Sophists were skilled in elaborate argumentation; were they would try and make the argument they were focusing on the stronger side, even if it was wrong or weaker.
For example, in the case of lying, a deontologist would argue that lying is always wrong, doesn’t matter even if it holds any potential to creating a greater good. While the consequentialist would say that to lie is a wrong thing to do because it would cause negative outcomes as a result, however lying could still be allowed, knowing that it would lead to the creation of a greater good. While as for a virtue-ethicist would care less on just about lying, but focus more on what does the decision say about his/her own traits and character. So here are several features that make the theory of virtue ethics distinctive compared to the other
Unfortunately, many Athenians found Socrates to be a threat to them due to some events that occurred during the time. Because of his beliefs, he was brought to trial for “corrupting the young” and “ not worshipping the gods of the state” and was later executed in 399 B.C at the age of 70. One of Socrates teachings was about evil. He believed that nobody chooses to do wrong voluntarily. He’d also said that doing wrong always harmed the offender and no one tries to bring harm upon themselves.
And imposed on himself the penalty of exile. He was so desperate for knowledge and to find out the truth that in the end he caused pain to himself. If he would remain ignorant, he would not have gone through much pain. His thirst of knowing the truth was the road through his tragic end. For Oedipus, ignorance would have been bliss.