This paper examines the main points of Plato's Apology, in which Socrates defends himself before an Athenian jury in 399 BC. It identifies the three charges brought against Socrates — impiety, practicing foreign religion, and corrupting the youth — and analyzes how he responded to each. The paper explores Socrates' key arguments: that his accusers were self-righteous hypocrites motivated by jealousy, that he was obeying a higher divine law that superseded civic law, and that the jury was unduly influenced by his political enemies. The paper concludes by considering how Plato portrayed the trial's outcome as unjust and politically motivated.
The Apology is based on a series of speeches made by Socrates in 399 BC, when he stood trial for corrupting the youth of Athens and for failing to acknowledge the city's gods. Because Socrates habitually questioned prevailing ideas in pursuit of greater understanding and enlightenment, he attracted powerful enemies. In his defense, he advanced several main arguments: that his accusers were self-righteous hypocrites, that he was obeying the laws of a higher divine power, and that the jury and judges had been unduly influenced by his opponents.
In showing his accusers as self-righteous hypocrites, Socrates directly questioned Meletus — the primary accuser — by demonstrating that the proceedings did nothing to help the youth of Athens. Instead, he argued, the charges were rooted in jealousy and half-truths, and he pressed his accusers on their true motivations and the personal benefits they stood to gain by prosecuting him.
Socrates also maintained that he had broken no laws by following the guidance of a higher power. He acknowledged that everyone must abide by rules and regulations, but argued that when human laws conflict with the laws of the gods, the morally upright person must choose the divine authority. On this basis, he claimed that he had not violated any legal provisions.
This position is captured in one of his most memorable declarations during the trial:
"Gentlemen, I am your grateful and devoted servant, but I owe a greater obedience to God than to you; and as long as I draw breath and have my faculties I shall never stop practicing philosophy. Are you not ashamed that you give your attention to acquiring as much money as possible, and similarly with reputation and honor, and give no attention or thought to truth and understanding and the perfection of your soul?" (Plato)
This statement encapsulates Socrates' view that he was not bound by the laws he was accused of violating, because he was answering to a higher authority. Finally, Socrates accused the jury and judges of being overly influenced by his enemies — a suspicion reinforced when the verdict against him was returned by only a narrow margin. He interpreted the judges' apparent anger and desire for retribution as evidence of the pressure they had felt from his opponents, and on this basis he questioned the validity of the entire trial.
Three formal charges were brought against Socrates: refusing to recognize the gods of the city, practicing his own foreign religion, and corrupting the youth of Athens. Xenophon, a contemporary observer, recorded the charges in the following terms:
"Socrates is guilty of crime in refusing to recognize the gods acknowledged by the state, and importing strange divinities of his own; he is further guilty of corrupting the young."
Xenophon's account also reveals the deeper philosophical tensions underlying the prosecution. Whereas most Athenians believed the gods had only partial knowledge of human affairs, Socrates held that the gods know all things — everything said, everything done, and even every thought formed in the silent chambers of the heart. Furthermore, critics charged that Socrates caused his associates to despise established laws by ridiculing the practice of selecting state officers by ballot — a principle, he said, no one would apply when choosing a pilot or a musician, where an error would be far less consequential than in political matters. According to his accusers, such arguments incited the young to reject the established constitution and become violent and headstrong. It was ultimately Socrates' unorthodox beliefs and his critical attitude toward the political establishment that provided the real impetus for the charges against him (Gill).
"Challenging accusers and asserting divine law"
"Plato frames the verdict as politically motivated"
You’re 57% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.