Socrates Argument Reconstruction in the Apology (24c-26b)
1. Meletus is a good man (P).
2. A good man always does what they should. (Supposed premise).
3. It is important that the young men are as good as possible (P).
4. The jurymen have knowledge of the laws (P).
5. All jurymen can educate and improve the youth (P).
6. All audience members can educate and improve the youth (P).
7. All Council members can educate and improve the youth (P).
8. All Athenians (not including Socrates) can educate and improve the youth (P).
9. Socrates is the sole corrupter of the youth (Meletus’ accusation) (P).
10. In the case of horses and other animals, it is often that very few people that can improve them,
and most others corrupts them. (P).
11. The case of horses and other animal translates to the case of men. (Supposed Premise).
12. Socrates cannot be the sole corrupter of youth (Meletus’ accusation in 8) awhile most people also
corrupt the youth (the status quo in 10) (from 9-11).
13. Therefore, Meletus’ accusation is absurd (from 12).
14. Socrates is not the sole corruptor of youth (from 14).
15. Wicked people do bad to their associates, while good people do good to their associates. (P).
16. No one would rather be harmed than improved (P).
17. Socrates spreading corruption means that his associates will be wicked (P).
18. Socrates is not ignorant of the fact that wicked people do bad to their associates, while good
people do good to their associates (P).
19. If Socrates was spreading corruption, then he would expect to be harmed by his associates. (from
17 and 18).
Abdulla AlShirawi, 06416048, SUNET ID: shirawi
Socrates Argument Reconstruction in the Apology (24c-26b)
20. Since no one wants to be harmed, Socrates would not willingly corrupt his associates (from 16
and 19).
21. If Socrates was unwillingly corrupting the youth, then, according to Athenian laws, he should be
instructed in private and not brought before the court. (P).
22. Meletus avoided Socrates, did not instruct him, and brought him before court (P).
23. Therefore, Socrates does not unwillingly corrupt the youth (from 1, 2, 21, 22).
24. Thus, Socrates does not, willingly or unwillingly, corrupt the youth (from 14, 20, 23).
Explanation:
The first sequence establishes that although Meletus claims that Socrates is the sole corruptor of the
youth, but sole corruptors do not seem to exist in nature. Socrates starts off by establishing that Meletus
claims that only Socrates does not improve those around him. He then rebuts this accusation with a
naturalistic argument against the existence of these sole corruptors. Employing horses as an example,
Socrates notes that it is only very few that improve the other and the majority that seem to make the
situation worse. Extending this to humans, Socrates argues this means that the claim that he is the sole
corruptor is absurd
In the second sequence, he argues that he does not willingly or unwillingly corrupt the youth on a caseby-case basis. In the unwilling case, the laws say that one should confront the wrongdoer in private and
not to bring him to court. Thereby, by bringing him to court, Meletus must concede that he is accusing
Socrates of willingly corrupting the youth. In the willing case, Socrates understands that wickedness
unto others directly begets wickedness unto oneself. That, coupled with the premise that no man would
wish harm upon themselves, means that Socrates would not willingly corrupt the youth. Thus, Socrates
argues that, in all cases, he would not corrupt the youth.
Abdulla AlShirawi, 06416048, SUNET ID: shirawi