Socrates remains one of the prominent law philosophers in Greek following his contribution to the concept of the law (Ranasinghe). He viewed natural law as a source of justice; however, from his teachings, it is unsettled as to whether he was a pure naturalist law thinker or positivists. This paper briefly discusses the charges against Socrates as was recorded in Apology. Apology, primarily, provides for the defenses that Socrates brought forward when he was arraigned in the court of law. Plato, one of Socrates pupils, wrote the apology.
Charges: Was Socrates Guilty?
Socrates was arrested and charged on two accounts; that is, on the account of corrupting the minds of the youths with his law teachings, and failing to believe in the gods of the state (Brickhouse and Smith). These charges were brought against him by Meletus. Socrates brought forward two solid arguments to refute the charges against him. First, he argued that his teaching was a command from a supernatural god. Socrates explained that the command from the supernatural god was more pious and just; accordingly, such command was above any humanmade laws. He continued to explain that commands from the supernatural god override humanmade laws when they conflict.
Accordingly, in his opinion, through teaching the youth, he was obeying the command from the supernatural god; which was wiser than to obey the human-made laws of the state (Bonner). In his second argument, Socrates asserted that obedience should be only to the just laws. That is, when commands or the laws are unjust, they should receive no obedience. It is informative to note that the measurement for just for Socrates was the perfect laws of the supernatural gods. This assertation identified Socrates as more of a naturalist than a positivist, who would otherwise obey the laws even if they were unjust. Notwithstanding, the contradictory in the teachings of Socrates is observable in Crito, where he later asserted that there should be obedience to the laws even if they are unjust.
Conclusion
Though the court found in contrary, the defenses by Socrates are more convincing; therefore, he ought to have been found not guilty. From a natural perspective, the arguments Socrates made during his defense are more compelling. For instance, if a command is given to one to kill another person with a sole aim of depriving that person his/her property, such commands remain unjust in the face of natural law; accordingly, one is compelled to agree with Socrates that such commands should be disobeyed. On this backdrop, one is inclined to find for Socrates unless one is a firm believer in positivist law, which asserts that the laws should be obeyed whether just or not. Secondly, Socrates argued that the laws originate from a supernatural god; though there is no scientific proof of this, one is inclined to agree with Socrates that indeed there is a supernatural being where all the laws originate. The universality of justice evidences this claim; that is, as opposed to right and wrong, justice speaks a universal language. What is just in country A will be just in Country B the same way fire burns in country A is the same way it will burns in country B. Precisely, though the court found that Socrates was guilty; if reconsideration were to be given to the arguments he brought forward, he would be found innocent.
Works Cited
Bonner, Robert J. “The Legal Setting of Plato’s Apology.” Plato and Modern Law, Routledge, 2017, pp. 147–55.
Brickhouse, Thomas C., and Nicholas D. Smith. “Socrates on Punishment and the Law: Apology 25c5-26b2.” Soul and Mind in Greek Thought. Psychological Issues in Plato and Aristotle, Springer, 2018, pp. 37–53.
Ranasinghe, Nalin. “Socrates’ Apology and Plato’s Poetry: A Speculative Exegesis.” Expositions, vol. 11, no. 1, 2017, pp. 138–56.
