M. F. Burnyeat's The Impiety Of Socrates

In 399 B.C., one of the most famous trials took place. The philosopher Socrates was accused of not recognizing the gods recognized by the state and corrupting the young and his contemporaries of Athens. Socrates pleads to the jurors that his trial should be ruled by the justice of the case, not by his manner or rhetorical skills he presents. In The Impiety of Socrates, M.F. Burnyeat provides a new way of understanding Plato’s Apology, and attempts to justify the juror’s decision as to the ultimate conviction of Socrates. Burnyeat’s reading strategy suggests that Socrates fails to defend himself against the charges by Maletus and others. The exact case for the prosecution is as follows: “Socrates does the wrong to the city by rejecting its religion, …show more content…
The god of the ‘Socratic religion’ is a god that demands virtue and constant questioning from human beings unlike the god of Athens, which teaches clear ideas of what virtue is and claim that you need gods to achieve it. For instance, the gods of Greek religion are gods one could barter with to get what you wanted in tough situations, yet the Socratic god can only do as virtue dictates and grants special treatment to no one. I believe that the patent hubris involved in claiming humans do not need help from the gods would raise fear in an Athenian juror of repercussions from the gods in relation to Socrates’ impiety, undoubtedly.
Socrates’ gods would have seemed different to the Athenian juror not only because of the ethical deviance, but also because of the new powers this god possessed. While not only speaking of a daemon, Socrates also announces that, whatever the court decides, he will remain unaffected; whether the charge is death or not. The one thing the Greeks did not have that the gods did have was immortality. People in the trial may have been afraid of Socrates’ attitude. Burnyeat, therefore, points out that Socrates’ logic is fatal as it “destroys the community’s religion and its sense of its own …show more content…
Socrates’ first charge was not believing in the gods of the State and introducing new divinities. As in Euthyphro, Socrates was very willing to know about the piety. However, the Athenian society had its definition of god that all people believed in. Socrates should have not broken himself away from the boundary of the Athenian god. Some may argue that there is no other way to best persuade someone of your religiousness to provide them with logic, and the logic provided by Socrates in the Apology is the best kind he could have gave in a one day case without preparation and without having full disclosure. However, a society has an order and people living inside the one agree to live with the order, and a law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior. Even if Socrates had known that their logic and religion is absurd, he could have found the better way, or more moderate way to let people know about his own logic and thoughts. Socrates, indeed, told jurors that his manners should not be counted at the opening of his trial, but the jurors needed to see his attitude against his charges. This could be associated with his second charge: corrupting the youth and insulting others. With his own belief, Socrates tried to hand down his logic to the youth. In doing so, public figures and authorities got insulted. In perspective of the