Defense on a Charge Brought Against Socrates Essay

Socrates, a son of Phaenarete and Sophroniscus, born in 470 in Athens is charged with corrupting the youth by his teaching them the real causes behind the natural phenomena and profiting as a result. The essence of his crime lies in corrupting the youth by teaching them the subjects he himself does not know, by making the youth believe the information contrary to what the general public believes in, and by making the youth obey him and disobey their parents. This is considered to be a crime because, according to those who accuse him, his teaching negatively affects the youth and their perceptions of the world, as well as it undermines the authority of the children’s parents who prefer obeying to Socrates rather than to their parents. Socrates is innocent because all the charges presented to him can be refuted; his ignorance still betters the students, his “erroneous” teaching cannot be regarded as teaching as such for Socrates “has never been anyone’s teacher” (33b), and it is only his intelligence that makes the youth listen to him. This means that no corruption took place.

Prosecution is presented by Meletus who belongs to the Pitthean deme. Namely Meletus should be presented as the other side for he is one of those people who accused Socrates of corruption and who himself can be a witness in this trial. Meletus expresses an opinion that it is Socrates’ ignorance that corrupts the youth. Socrates appreciates his care about the youth “For it is correct to take care of the youth first, to make them the best possible, just as it’s reasonable for a good farmer to take care of the young plants first, and all the others afterward.” (2d) Meletus keeps to the point that Socrates’ corruption consists in “teaching them [the youth] not to acknowledge the gods the city acknowledges.” (26b) Meletus states that he heard that Socrates did not acknowledge any gods at all teaching the others that the moon was the earth and the sun was a stone (26d). What’s more, Meletus asserts that after Socrates’ teaching the youth starts obeying him more than their parents, which once again proves that he is corruptive.

However, Socrates is not guilty of anything he has been charged with. To begin with, he indeed taught children Math though he himself did not know much about the subject, but his “teaching” bettered his students and, at this, he never took any fees from them. Corruption is harmful and since his teaching brought no harm, it cannot be considered corruptive. Besides, he did not teach children but simply asked them leading questions: “I am not teaching … anything, but all I do is ask questions.” (226) This can be proved by Meno‘s slave boy: “Socrates: How many … are the two times two feet? … Boy: Four… Socrates: Then could there not come to be another area two times as large as this one…? Boy: Yes. Socrates: How many feet, then, will it be? Boy: Eight.” (218-223) This means that Socrates’ teaching was not corruptive because it did bring benefits to the boy.

Furthermore, the charge that Socrates’ corruption consists in his teaching the youth not to acknowledge gods can also be refuted. Socrates refers to the books of Anaxagoras of Clazomenae which state the same ideas about the moon and the sun that he keeps to (32 e) The youth reads these books and finds out this information from them. Moreover, Socrates has never been anyone’s teacher though he never begrudged those who wanted to listen to his talking. (33b) This refutes the fact of corruption for no crime (teaching) in fact took place. As far as obeying the parents after his teaching is concerned, it is only the question of authority. Just like people trust doctors more than their parents and like Athenians trust those who have most intelligence, the youth trust Socrates. (20) The youth recognizes him as a more intelligent person whose advice should be taken into account, which makes them, the youth, obey him more than their parent. Therefore, this makes him not guilty of corruption.

In conclusion, Socrates’ actions can be totally justified making him not guilty in the crime he has been charged with. His ignorance does not do any harm to his learners. On the contrary, they benefit much from the studies. Socrates never teaches them but only asks questions. He cannot be accused of corrupting children for making them not acknowledge the gods for it is not only Socrates but a number of other books which state the same. The youth could find out this information from books rather than from him. Lastly, the youth prefer to obey to Socrates due to his intelligence. Thus, Socrates is not guilty of corrupting the youth and must be acquitted.

Works Cited

Plato, Anastaplo, George, and Berns, Laurence. Plato’s Meno. Focus Pub/r Pullins Co, 2003.

Reeve, C.D.C., Meineck, Peter, Doyle, James, Plato, Aristophanes, and Xenophon. The Trials of Socrates: Six Classic Texts. Hackett Publishing, 2002.