Socrates' Defense: Why the Good Cannot Be Harmed

Introduction: The Central Claim of the Apology

Plato's Apology, part of the sequence of Trial of Socrates dialogues, shows the famous philosopher pleading his defense before the assembly of Athens, which has decided he must die for corrupting the youth. His sentence does not trouble him, and he respects the decision of the state, acknowledging that it has the right to decide such matters. He objects, however, to the notion that he is being harmed by the decision. It is his belief that the lesser cannot harm the greater. The greater, by virtue of its very essence, exists above the lesser and is therefore not afflicted by the same pettiness that afflicts the lesser. Socrates, in other words, has his eyes fixed on the transcendental ideal — the one, the good, and the true.

He notes: "I do not think it is permitted that a better man be harmed by a worse; certainly he might kill me, or perhaps banish me or disfranchise me, which he and others think to be a great harm, but I do not think so" (Plato, 1954). This paper argues that his statement is true based on his understanding of the ultimate good and the ultimate goal of life: to be united with the one, the good, and the true in the transcendent realm.

The Soul Above the Body: Why the Worse Cannot Harm the Better

Plato argues that a worse man cannot harm a better man because the better is filled with a different light altogether — one that cannot be drained simply because the body is attacked. The body, Plato points out, is not the mind. The mind is where one's concern should lie, as Socrates makes clear in the Phaedo: "Only the body and its desires cause civil war, civil discord, and battles, for all wars are due to the desire to acquire wealth, and it is the body and the care of it, to which we are enslaved" (Plato, Phaedo, 66c–d).

The war that Socrates' accusers have dared to wage against him is caused by their jealousy and their fear — their worry that he might usurp their positions as leaders in Athens. They resent his popularity. Socrates' friends, for their part, hate the verdict that has been handed down. Crito begs Socrates to abandon the sentence and escape, since an opportunity exists to do so. Socrates, however, refuses.

Righteousness Over Life: Socrates' Refusal to Escape

Socrates' refusal is echoed in the Apology when he states:

The difficulty, my friends, is not in avoiding death, but in avoiding unrighteousness; for that runs faster than death. I am old and move slowly, and the slower runner has overtaken me, and my accusers are keen and quick, and the faster runner, who is unrighteousness, has overtaken them. And now I depart hence condemned by you to suffer the penalty of death, and they, too, go their ways condemned by the truth to suffer the penalty of villainy and wrong; and I must abide by my award — let them abide by theirs.

In other words, Socrates argues it is better to die in righteousness than to live in unrighteousness. For him to attempt to escape would be like a soldier who throws down his arms and abandons that which defines him in order to preserve his life — a life that is never truly his own but must be forfeited to God or Fate, since man himself has no final say in the matter. Socrates thus implies that the only person who can truly harm a better person is that better person himself — by abandoning his morals, his philosophical commitments, his sense of the one, the good, and the true, and instead clinging to something ultimately intangible and impermanent.

Conclusion: The Good Remains Untouched

This argument of Socrates is very well made, and he supports it with the statement: "no evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death. He and his are not neglected by the gods" (Apology). Socrates argues that the gods watch over all things and are not ignorant of or indifferent to what happens to those who love them. Men who are devoted to the good will be rewarded for their goodness, and those devoted to the bad will be punished. This belief appears both just and rational, for it highlights the idea that an external, objective ideal of justice exists above — something Socrates had earlier described through the Allegory of the Cave as something that must be actively pursued in order to be fully understood.

In conclusion, Plato's Apology shows Socrates arguing that a better person cannot be harmed by a worse one. First, the better person stands above the lesser, and if devoted to the good, nothing can sever that connection. Second, the better person may be judged by the worse in this world, but that judgment is not final — there is another world that follows, in which the better person will be afforded either great rest or communion with those good men who have passed on before. Plato's dialogues together make clear that for Socrates, either outcome is a victory, and the death sentence therefore harms him not at all.