Proving Socrates' Innocence Through His Appeal of Ignorance

The Innocence of Socrates

At the age of seventy, Socrates is ordered to the court of law to defend himself and his conduct for two primary reasons: being an atheist (creating false gods) and corrupting the youth. Socrates must defend himself from the lying accusations made against him. There have been many who have made accusations against Socrates for many years; but Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon have accused Socrates of “wrongdoing in that he busies himself studying things in the sky and below the earth; he makes the worse into the stronger argument, and he teaches these same things to others” (Plato 23). Ironically, in Socrates’ eyes the reason he believes he is wise is due to the simple fact that he knows that he knows nothing, and admits to this fact. Therefore, in this paper, based on Socrates' appeal for ignorance, I am going to argue that he should be found innocent.

Subsequently, a friend of Socrates travels to the Oracle at Delphi where he received word that he (Socrates) was the wisest of men because he realizes he knows nothing. Socrates disproves this statement and went to one of those reputed wise, thinking that he could refute the oracle and say to him that there is someone wiser than he. In Socrates pursuit for redemption, however, he encounters several “experts” consisting of a poet, a craftsman/politician, and an orator, who he thought were wiser than him. As a result, these men came to dislike him and Socrates withdrew himself, exporting their ignorance, and realizing he was wiser. “Socrates thought to himself, “I am wiser than this man, it is likely that neither of us knows anything worthwhile, but he thinks he knows something when he does not” (Plato 25). Socrates concludes he is wiser to this small extent because he realizes the connection between virtue and wisdom and the importance of one’s own self-knowledge could be beneficial for all of society as a whole, not just for one individual man.

As the story continued in the Apology, Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon have accused Socrates of corrupting the young. However, Socrates believes Meletus is hypocritical in the sense that he made the accusations against Socrates and brought many people into the court to hear this case. Meletus pretended he cared about the corruption of the young when all he actually cared about was seeing the conviction of Socrates. Socrates tells Meletus that if he corrupted the youth, then he did so unwillingly. Socrates says, “either I do not corrupt the young or, if I do, it is unwillingly” (Plato 29). Socrates is admitting that he does not always have the answer, and is not always right in his ways. But, in his defense, Socrates believes that in asking questions and admitting his ignorance he will learn better and shall cease to do what he is doing. Socrates proceeds to tell Meletus, “you, however, have avoided my company and were unwilling to instruct me, but you bring me here, where the law requires one to bring those who are in need of punishment, not of instruction” (Plato 29).

Furthermore, Meletus has never been at all concerned with this matter. It is Socrates’ belief that Meletus is required to instruct him, advise him of his so called “wrong doings.” Socrates believes “the law does not require you [Meletus] to bring people to court for such unwilling wrong doings, but to get hold of them privately, to instruct them and exhort them” (Plato 29).

However, Socrates questions who is an expert in this kind of excellence, who is the wisest, who should be the judge? Once again, Socrates calls into question all different conceptions and deliberates over who is an expert in right and wrong. It is this honest questioning, the inquiry that provokes the knowledge from within, and ironically what leads Socrates’ to his death.

Based on this, I find Socrates argument very convincing. I believe it crucial for there to be an expert in order to instruct us about right or wrong actions. I feel as though Socrates should have been found innocent by appealing to ignorance. I find it wrong to accuse someone of a crime which was committed unwillingly. In other words, based on Socrates’ claims regarding his innocence I would vote for Socrates’ innocence rather than guilt. As one of the 501 members of the jury I believe Socrates is innocent because nobody stood up or moved forward when Socrates asked the gentlemen in the courtroom to do so if they felt that they were corrupt (by Socrates) as young men and thought that they were given bad advice (by Socrates).

In addition, in Socrates defense I believe he has done a service to Athens by improving its beliefs of wisdom and virtue. Socrates has reformed and improved both his own moral outlook and the moral outlook of others. He has devoted his life to cross-examining other people about virtue and has urged them to pay attention to their souls rather than wealth, power, and other external advantages.

I believe it was Meletus’ job to pull Socrates aside and instruct him and provide him ‘advice’ rather than bring him to court for such unwilling wrong doings. Therefore, I believe Meletus to be highly insolent and uncontrollable in his accusations toward Socrates. To me, I think if Socrates wanted to take part in politics, he would have, however, this was not the case. In the end, I believe Socrates’ life should have been spared because another such man will not easily come among us.

In conclusion, in the Apology the problem was resolved rather neatly. The jury now votes and sentences Socrates to death, but Socrates believes a good man cannot be harmed either in life or death. Unfortunately, I was not one of the 501 members of the jury and I did not have a say in the sentencing of Socrates, but if I did it I would have voted for his innocence. “Now the hour to part has come. I go to die, you go to live. Which of us goes to the better lot is known to no one, expect the god” (Plato 42).