How Did Socrates Define The Nature Of Piety

Given the Supreme Court’s assertion that the associations and activities of the Humanitarian Law Project were a threat to national security, I believe that Plato’s Socrates would have found the decision of the Court to be unjust. Like HLP, Socrates’s behavior was perceived as a threat to the nation, in that he was impious and corrupting the youth with his beliefs. However, Socrates found that “piety” was subjective, saying that his relentless search to confirm the words of the Oracle made him “In ten-thousandfold poverty because of [my] devotion to the god.” In this quote, Socrates alludes to the ambiguity that exists in the legal system, specifically in defining the nature of piety. Given the similarly ambiguous terminology of the HLP case, I believe that Socrates would not find it lawful to punish HLP. …show more content…
He says that he has no intention of corrupting the state, saying “If I do corrupt, I do it involuntarily… and if I corrupt involuntarily, the law is not that you bring me in here for such involuntary wrongs.” He is adamant that he has no desire to harm his country, explaining to his friend in “Crito” that “It is not holy to use force against one’s mother or father, and it is so much worse to do so against one’s homeland.” Socrates is committed to the law of Athens, showing that none of his actions would be intentionally harming the nation. Like Socrates, the HLP was not intentionally endangering national security, stating that they only intended to encourage peaceful activities from the groups they associated with. Because they have no malicious intent, I believe that Socrates would not deem it just to punish the group as he would not find their activities to be a danger to the