Socrates Defense What Is Socrates'

Socrates Defense What is Socrates' argument that he does not corrupt anyone? Is his argument a good one why or why not? Socrates is accused of corrupting the young because he has fostered atheism and a lack of respect for the laws of Athens. In his defense, Socrates states that he is merely encouraging the youth of Athens to question things, and therefore teaches them to be "as good as possible." His questioning does not deny the gods: rather, it promotes morality.

Meletos says that the laws make the young better, not learning to question the laws. The argument between the two men is similar to one which occurs in many schools across the nation, where conservatives advocate censoring certain books, not teaching evolution. They preach specific codes of morality and obedience to religious and civic institutions vs. liberals who advocate teaching students how to study and how to learn so the next generation can challenge possibly destructive laws, values, and norms.

Through his argumentative method, Socrates implies that he is actually the superior citizen as well as the greater philosopher to Meletos. His question-and-answer method of teaching is analogous to the process of questioning witnesses. He points out that the laws of the judicial process compel Meletos to answer him, just as he asked questions of the young.

Furthermore, the laws are made by men, not eternal beings, thus the idea that Socrates, a man who questions, alone corrupts the young while the legislators who make the laws (including the laws about questioning witnesses) do not is ludicrous. Socrates goes on to suggest that better 'trainers' make the young better, and he suggests he is an expert teacher, much like a horse-trainer is a better trainer of horses, as opposed to a layperson.

Furthermore, the evidence that the young flock to him for training is evidence of his goodness, as the youth naturally wish to be good, rather than wicked. Socrates' argument regarding the analogy of a teacher to a horse-trainer seems somewhat shakier than his defense of questioning as a valuable tool of learning and civic justice. After all, there are bad teachers and good teachers, just as there are bad horse-trainers and good horse-trainers.

Having professional knowledge of how to be an educator may convey a certain advantage, but it is not an automatic guarantee of conveying superior knowledge. Furthermore, many laypeople can have great stores of knowledge, and may have learned to train horses better than professionals -- and to be better teachers and philosophers, from personal experience. In fact, given that philosophy is the study of life, one could argue that ordinary people are the best teachers of the discipline.

This is one of the principles of the democratic Athenian system, that everyday people can govern and teach themselves. Socrates, an advocate of philosophers 'leading' others through teaching and through government leadership in a philosopher-kingdom, stands opposed to such ideals and ideas in his teachings. Socrates has a strong point, however, when he notes that Meletos has not lived up to Athenian democratic ideals.

Rather than trying to teach Socrates the right way of thinking, and engaging in a dialogue with Socrates, Meletos brings a case against Socrates in the law-courts -- simply because he disagrees with the philosopher. A true democrat who opposed what Socrates taught would have opposed him verbally, and tried to teach him the right way of thinking through personal advocacy, and not used the laws of the state to oppose his point-of-view. Meletos acts as a censor because he is afraid he cannot rhetorically overcome the philosopher.

Meletos is not an advocate of instruction, but persecution and obedience. Socrates says: "If I corrupt unintentionally, the.