Introduction
The Apology is a written work by Xenophon of Athens which covers a Socratic discussion about the judicial defense that he raised during his trial for corruption allegations of youths in Athens. During the occasion, Socrates had been sentenced to death, and he wanted to challenge the legal framework that oversaw his arraignment and verdict (Plato 69). By reading the Apology, Xenophon brings to light what Socrates said concerning death and the criminal justice system. Socrates had it that it is better to die before the onset of old age than to evade dying by being subject to injustices when it comes to prosecution. Regarding Socrates’s trial in the jury, to what extent should a human being use his freedom of thinking and action such that the same will not put them into trouble? Does it mean that conspiring against an individual based on what they believe will extend ethical misappropriation in society?
Answering the Prompt from the Apology
When Athens was subjected to intensive warfare with Spartans, many issues ensued, which led to decisions that would put some individuals, such as Socrates, in a problem. Having been accused of impiety and corruption of the youth, Socrates seemed to have challenged the jury system that they had to give him capital punishment (Everson 144). One of the aspects that contributed to Socrates’s accusation was his freedom to object to the acknowledgment of gods that Athens observed, and also, he was introduced to new deities. Therefore, based on the question I asked above, it is a matter of contentiousness, minding that one is free to choose their social and political standings (Plato 187). According to the Apology, the death sentence had been imposed on Socrates due to his questions on politico-philosophic hence, resulting in moral corruption and impiety. According to the ethical perspective, one is free to engage with society to bring logical concurrences and not provocations. Socrates would ask that “Who’s freer than I, since I take neither gifts nor pay from anyone?” (Xenophon 181). This means that Socrates’s accusations were politically-centric since he did not indulge in gross misconduct, resulting in the death penalty.
In the Apology by Xenophon, a reader can see various concepts that show there was a limitation to one’s freedom which is against ethical well-being. Ethics give someone what is known as the capacity of freethinking, and therefore, Socrates had the liberty to manipulate youth for the better future of Athens, subject that the deep state then was against (Plato 199). According to Socrates, he had learned what is good, and he always did that extension to everyone surrounding him. “I began seeking out and learning whatever good things I could and have never stopped doing so since” (Xenophon 181). Therefore, it is clear that Socrates was giving the jury the ideology that he had showcased proof that he did not work in vain.
Socrates claimed to act for the better of the city by bringing reputable virtues and ethical living to everyone. During that time, Socrates had little money to give in return, and many people had offered him gifts, and he clarified that no one would demand payment of a debt from him. According to Socrates, people claimed to own him, and thus, the act of getting arraigned in court because of two accusations was null and void (Everson 201). From this paragraph, the burning question is, how hard is it for the societal leadership to credit life that has no negative mark like that of Socrates?
Conspiring against an individual in legal processes does not instill any ethical value. Rather, such occasions usually yield to a society with a weak justice system that does not guarantee ethical life standards guided by equity and equality for all people. Many people owed Socrates the debt of gratitude, which means he was a reputable person in society in terms of ethical virtues that impressed many Athenians (Xenophon 183). How comes the jury was blind to the intellectual reasoning that Socrates had? On such occasions, the world may not give a person what they deserve as many challenges bring ideological differences which may put someone in harm. Compared to many ancient rulers, Socrates’s doctrines were not destructive to society as they were enriching and eye-opening on the need for freedom to reason and act when given a chance (Everson 184). Socrates deserved praise from men and gods due to his inspiring life, which focused on enlightening society about what was right.
Xenophon believes that Socrates’s jury trial was a conspiracy to stop his liberal mind from inspiring many. Socrates would say that “I admit that people are concerned special focus I have on educating people. When it comes to health, people trust doctors more than their parents” (Xenophon 182). By mentioning the above faction, Socrates wanted to challenge the jury that they lacked the legal paraphernalia that proved his gross misconduct in society and deserving of a death sentence. Socrates argued that Athenians trusted one who speaks with intelligence instead of people who utter words due to their political affiliations (Everson 109). “We do know, don’t we. what kinds of things corrupt the young… you know anyone who has turned impiety from modesty of my teachings, or from temperance to extravagance, or from diligence to negligence…?” (Xenophon 182). That question was one of the climax points that left the jury team disgruntled, as Socrates seemed to outweigh them in logical, legal, and liberal listening. With all that, I wonder what power or impunity would allow them to hold their thinking that Socrates was supposed to be sentenced to death?
I clearly see that lack of freedom for human beings then mattered to their living state. If the jury was critical of Socrates’s submissions, the ruling would be overturned in Socrates’s favor. However, the system was filled with politics, which meant it was hard for Socrates to escape since the majority may not have power over the deciding majority (Everson 219). Socrates uttered, ‘Nor should the fact that I am being put to death unjustly lead me to have a worse opinion of myself in the slightest” (Xenophon 183). That meant Socrates would be a disgrace to the people who had sentenced him and make him weak about his freedom and well-living state that he stood for during the ancient times.
Conclusion
Xenophon’s Apology serves to open the eyes of liberal groups in modern society. One would wonder how a notable brain like Socrates would be accused of moral corruption that led to the death penalty. I learned many elements from Socrates that I am supposed to be bound enough to support my opinions by justifying even when the decision-makers are ignorant. Socrates never got weak due to the impunity that the trying judges showed. Rather he was optimistic that the judgment would serve as a wisdom-filling aspect to people. How could a society with intellectuals fail to honor Socrates’s liberty of freethinking? In modern times, is it possible to live ethically with the current political decisions based on conspiracy? When will the world credit intellectuals without politicizing all agendas and factions of law? With such questions answered, they mark an epitome of a long journey regarding ethics and living well in society.
Works Cited
Everson, Stephen. Aristotle: The Politics and The Constitution of Athens. 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Plato. The Republic. Translated by Raymond Larson. AHM, 1979.
Xenophon. Apology: Socrates’s Defense to The Jury. Oxford University Press, nd. pp. 177-183.