The question of justice or lack of it arises often in any societal set-up because people are inclined to pursuing malicious agendas for personal gains. This scenario leads to unfairness and adversity, but the response to such occurrences depends solely on the person who has been offended or denied justice. In Apology, Socrates is accused of different issues including corrupting the youth of Athens. He sits before a jury and after presenting his defense, a guilty verdict is made and he is sentenced to death by poisoning.
In Euripides, Jason decides to leave Medea, his wife, for another woman, despite the two of them having undergone great suffering. Medea has sacrificed a lot for Jason and thus when he decides to leave her for Glauce, she is consumed by anger, which inspires her revenge mission. The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast how Medea and Socrates respond to injustice or unfair accusations.
Socrates vs. Medea
Both Apology and Euripides share an overarching normative question on how people choose to respond differently to the question of injustice. Socrates is unfairly accused of corrupting the youth of Athens among other trumped-up charges. He chooses to defend himself against such charges by facing the justice system of the day. He asserts, “It is right for me, gentlemen, to defend myself first against the first lying accusations made against me and my first accusers, and then against the later accusations and the later accusers” (Apology 18b).
On the other hand, in Euripides, the play opens with Medea complaining about the injustice she has suffered at the hands of Jason, her husband. She says, “I wanted to come here, to speak to earth and heaven, to tell them about the wrongs inflicted on my mistress… Stopped crying? I envy your ignorance. Her suffering has only just begun – she’s not even half way through it” (Medea 70). Here are two cases defined by injustice and unfairness, but the offended parties choose to respond differently.
On the one hand, Socrates decides to face his accusers and defend himself within the set legal system. On the other hand, Medea resorts to crying and lamenting about Jason’s decision to leave her and her children for another woman. These initial reactions and approaches to adversity are important because they lay the foundation of how the rest of the story unfolds.
The overarching normative issue in these two cases is the question of injustice and unfairness. Both Socrates and Medea’s issues converge at adversity and they have to decide how to react under such circumstances. However, their responses diverge primarily due to their philosophical grounding. The following section discusses how Medea and Socrates respond or react to adversity by comparing and contrasting the actions of the two characters.
In the case of Socrates, he finds himself in a complicated situation where he is being accused of surreal charges of corrupting the Athenian youth and questioning norms. Therefore, from the onset of the trial, it is clear that in a just system, he will win the case. However, the system is unjust and the jurors are determined to convict Socrates. In the opening parts of the speech he notes,
I must surely defend myself and attempt to uproot from your minds in so short a time the slander that has resided there so long. I wish this may happen, if it is in any way better for you and me and that my defense may be successful, but I think this is very difficult and I am fully aware of how difficult it is. Even so, let the matter proceed as the god may wish, but I must obey the law and make my defense (Apology 19a).
In other words, Socrates is aware that he may not win this case, but he is prepared to face the law of the land, as currently constituted, as part of being a responsible citizen. Ultimately, Socrates is convicted and the verdict is given that he should die by poisoning. At this point, it would be expected of him to challenge that decision and appeal to a higher court or call in witnesses to testify on his behalf. However, he chooses to respect the process of judgment and in pursuit of the truth, the best he can do is to present his case as honestly as he can. He posits, “It is not the purpose of a juryman’s office to give justice as a favor to whoever seems good to him, but to judge according to law, and this he has sworn to do” (Apology 35c).
At one point, he even hints that he could have used emotional manipulation to influence the outcome of his case, but he chooses to do the right thing. In other words, by abiding by the jury’s verdict, Socrates shows that he is willing to respect the justice system despite its many shortcomings.
On her part, Medea chooses a different direction in dealing with her adversity. Her lamentations and self-pity about the injustices that Jason has meted on her quickly turn into hatred, which stirs vengeance as a way of attaining justice. According to her, the only way out of her predicament is killing Jason’s, newfound love. Even after Aegeus, the King of Athens offers her a sanctuary in his palace, she is too blinded with a vengeance that she goes ahead with her plan to make Jason suffer by killing their children and Glauce.
After succeeding in executing her wicked plans, she rejoices in the death of her victims. To the messenger who reports the death of Glauce and her father, she says, “Tell me of their deaths. If you report they died in pain, you’ll double my rejoicing” (Medea 1340). In the process of avenging her injustices, she not only destroys Jason but also herself. Therefore, the quest for justice takes different routes with Medea deciding to achieve it by her means and Socrates choosing to respect the flawed Athenian laws as a responsible citizen.
Conclusion
An Apology and Euripides, two people are facing a similar normative problem of injustice, but they choose to respond differently. Socrates respects the rule of law and subjects himself to the justice system even though he knows he cannot win against a biased jury that is out to have him convicted and sentenced to death even if it means trumping up charges against an innocent man. He chooses to stand by his principles in the face of adversity even when he can manipulate the case emotionally to his favor. On the other hand, Medea decides to respond to adversity and injustice through vengeance. She kills her children, Glauce, and Creon, which means she self-destructs in the process.