Socrates Corrupting The Youth Analysis

986 Words 4 Pages
Socrates is considered to be one of the greatest philosophers in not only the time of ancient Greece but one of the greatest in history. His philosophical views were seen as radical during his time and it eventually leads to the trial condemning him to his death. The Athenians were unjust in their conviction and condemnation of the death of Socrates. Socrates was accused of being impiety for not believing in the gods that the state believed in and corrupting the youth. His different views made him a criminal? That’s not right. Socrates is not corrupting youth with his teachings, people have their own free will to do what they want and it’s not his fault people want to follow his teachings. These charges did not fit the punishment he received …show more content…
Those who follow his teachings make their own decisions, and unfortunately, some of those followers acted against what the government sees as right. Socrates does not intend to create harm, it was not his fault and he cannot control the actions of others. But it doesn’t help that his teachings were associated with those who were corrupt. According to Michael Zuckert, “Socrates himself would not voluntarily corrupt others, because to do so is to make them harmful to their associates, and surely Socrates would not act to bring harm to himself. Socrates, like all men, seeks the good. If he and others embrace something other than the good, it cannot be because they voluntarily and willfully turn their backs on it” (Zuckert 228). It is also unjust because one of the accusers, Anytus whose son wanted to follow Socrates, did not allow his son to do so and so his son became an alcoholic. He blamed Socrates and used this as another example of Socrates corrupting the youth. Socrates was not corrupting the youth, but his teachings taught to question everything because you cannot be sure of anything. In the government's eyes, Socrates was starting some kind of movement by changing the way people perceived their lives and the way they perceived the gods. They unjustly accused him of crimes that did not fit the punishment given to him. Socrates’ was a good and wise man, but his teachings contradicted the Athens …show more content…
If he had not carried out his sentence, then justice would not have served. This would contradict his teachings and his actions. Even though Socrates opposed democracy, he went through with his punishment; death by poison. If he was really anti-democracy, he would have never agreed to a trial. “However, as opposed to Socrates the citizen who sometimes praises other regimes, ‘Socrates the philosopher desires democracy’.10 Indeed, within the discussion of the decline of the regimes Socrates is ‘actually engaged in a defense of democracy against its enemies the potential tyrants’, the timocratic Spartans.11” (Klonoski 11). The difference in views is what made Socrates a target of the democratic government, and even when his sentence was carried out, they didn’t want to get their hands dirty. Socrates was sentenced to death by poisoning, instead of trying to flee, he went through with it and accepted his fate. He died an innocent man but his philosophy will live

Related Documents