Arguments in the Apology
I. The Nature of Socrates' Wisdom: Clarification
The first issue to be tackled in the apology is the nature of Socrates' wisdom, for he
had gained an unpopularity due to the claim of the Oracle at Delphi (prompted by the
inquiry of a certain Chairephon) that no one was wiser than Socrates.
A. Problem
1. Socrates believed that he was not wise at all
2. The Oracle claimed that Socrates' was the wisest of all people
Socrates is struck by what the Oracle meant. How can it be that I am the wisest of all
people? The Oracle must be right, but what does it mean?
B. Method of Clarification
1. Socrates goes to those who are "allegedly" wise from different walks of life and
occupations (politicians, poets, and craftspeople) and examines them (i.e., by asking
questions, engaging in conceptual analysis, and presenting arguments.)
2. Socrates discovers that they really are not wise. They do not know what they are
talking about. The greater the reputation, the less knowledge they have; the lesser the
reputation, the more knowledgeable. But no one really wise is found.
3. Conclusion: There are those who think that they have knowledge but they do not.
Socrates is wiser than them because he does not think that he knows what he does not
know. Socratic ignorance is wisdom.
C. "Misunderstanding" Key to Socrates' Unpopularity
1. Bystanders thought that Socrates' proof that his interlocuor did not have knowledge
implied that he had the very knowldge his interlocuter lacked.
2. True wisdom is only the property of the God; human wisdom is worthless, except
to know that we do not know - to know thyself.
II. Corrupting the Youth Charge
Thesis: "Socrates is guilty of corrupting the youth" (p. 29) Meletus
To prove: Socrates is not guilty of corrupting the youth
A. Argument One Strategy (p. 30)
Show that it is less likely that one person could corrupt a group of people than it is that
they should be corrupted by a majority.
1. Argument from analogy:
(1) Horse breeders improve horses.
(2) Those who use horses corrupt them.
(3) Horse breeder are fewer in number than those who use horses.
-----------------------------------------------------------------(4) Therefore, those who improve horses are a minority and those who corrupt them
the majority.
And
(5) What is true of horses is true of all animals.
THEREFORE:
General principle:
(6) Improvement comes from a minority and corruption from the majority
(7) Socrates is one man (a minority)
(8) Therefore, it is less likely that the youth have been corrupted by Socrates
than by some larger number of people.
(9) Therefore, those guilty of corrupting the youth are to be found in the larger
aggregate of Athenians (the educators, council members, jurymen, etc).
=========================================
2. Posible Strengthed Argument (ad hominem):
(10) And Meletus has shown no concern for the youth.
Implied Premise
(11) Those who show no concern for people are more likely to corrupt them than
those who show a concern for the youth.
(12) Meletus is more likely to be guilty of corrupting the youth than Socrates.
==========================================
B. Argument Two Strategy (p. 31)
Make a distinction between willingly and unwillingly corrupting the youth
To Prove: Socrates corrupts the youth but does not break the law in so doing.
Disjunctive Argument:
(1) Either Socrates corrupts the youth or Socrates does not corrupt the youth. [implied
exclusive disjunction: either p or not-p]
(2) If Socrates does corrupt the youth, then either Socrates corrupts the youth
unwillingly or he corrupts the youth willingly.
(3) If Socrates corrupts the youth unwillingly, then Socrates is not guilty under the
law and not liable to punishment (only corrective instruction is required)
-------------------------------------------------------Therefore:
(4) It is possible for Socrates to corrupt the youth but not be guilty for doing so.
(5) Socrates is guilty under the law only if he corrupts the youth willingly.
Therefore,
(6) Socrates' presence at the trial presupposes that he corrupts the youth willingly.
Burden of Proof Shift: Does Socrates corrupt the youth willingly?
Enter SECOND CHARGE
III. Atheism Charge
First Thesis: "Socrates is guilty of of teaching the youth not to believe in the gods of
the city but new divinities." (p. 31)
Method of Refutation:
CLARIFICATION: What does Meletus mean?
[Socrates believes in no gods at all]
or
[Socrates believes in some gods but not the gods of the city]
Second Thesis: "Socrates is guilty of believing in no gods at all."
To Prove: "Socrates believes that there are some gods." (p. 31)
A. Strategy One (ad hominem): Meletus contradicts himself
Meletus says that Socrates both believes and does not believe in gods.
B. Strategy Two: Inferential Analogy to theism
To Prove: Socrates believes that there are gods.
1. Argument 1 (analogy):
(a) He who believes in "human activities" believes that there are human beings.
Therefore:
(b) He who believes in "divine activities" believes that there are divine beings.
Implied premise:
The existence of P-activities entails the existence of P-things.
(Vague: what are P-activities? Activities done by P-things or P-agents?)
2. Argument 2: (hypothetical syllogism)
(a) If there are divine activities, then there are divine beings.
(b) If there are divine beings, then there are gods
Therefore,
(c) If there are divine activities, then there are divine beings.
[(b) follows from (i) divine beings are either gods or children of gods. (ii) But if there
are children of gods, then there are gods.]
Therefore,
(d) If a person believes in divine activities, then the person believes in the existence of
gods.
So,
since
(e) Socrates believes in divine activies.
therefore,
(f) Socrates believes that there are some gods.
IV. Fear of Death Arguments
Thesis Against Socrates:
Your occupation, Socrates, dishonours you since you put yourself at risk of death.
A. Wrong Focus: Good Actions Over Risk of Death
Two possibilities here:
1. To prove: Actions which risk death do not necessarily dishonour a man.
If a person does what is right, then a person has honor.
It is possible that right actions cary with them risk of death
Therefore,
Itis possible that a person has honor even if he risks death.
2. To prove: The rightness or wrongness of actions is of greater importance to a good
person than whether the person's actions entail the risk of death.
If a man is good, then he regards only one property of his actions as ultimately
decisive (or important), whether they are right or wrong.
If a person is concerned with the risk of death, then it is not the case that he regards
only one property o his action as ultimately important, whether they are right or
wrong.
If a person is concerned with the risk of death, then the person is not a good person.
B. Fear of Death is "epistemically" unwarranted
1. General claim argument
(a) If a person fears death, then the person thinks that she knows that the death is the
greatest of evils.
[Consider, is it possible to fear a state which you think you know is blessed?]
(b) But no one knows what the underworld will be like.
Therefore,
(c) A person who fears death thinks that he is wise when he is not.
2. self-referential relevance
(d) Socrates does not think he is wise.
(e) Socrates claim to have no adequate knowledge of the underworld.
Therefore,
(f) Socrates should not fear death.
C. Escaping Death is Morally unjustified
A fortiori Argument:
If I have obeyed the commands of earthly superiors, then a fortiori I should obey the
commands of God.
[implied premise: The moral obligation to obey a divine commander is greater than
the obligation to obey a human superior.]
General Argument:
(A) if [Socrates obeys God], then [(Socrates is morally right) and (Socrates is put to
death)] AND IF [Socrates obeys man], then [(Socrates is morally wrong) and
(Socrates is not put to death)]
(B) Either Socrates obeys God or Socrates obeys man
=============================================================
===
(C)Either [Socrates is morally right and is put to death] OR [Socrates is morally
wrong and is not put to death]
Argument for (A)
(1) If Socrates obeys God, then Socrates continues with his occupation as philosopher
(2) If Socrates continues with his occupation as a philosopher, then Socrates is put to
death.
===================================
(3) If Socrates obeys God, then Socrates is put to death.
[from (1) an (2), hypothetical syllogism]
To prove:
(A) if [Socrates obeys God], then [(Socrates is morally right) and (Socrates is put to
death)] AND IF [Socrates obeys man], then [(Socrates is morally wrong) and
(Socrates is not put to death)]
=============================================================
1. It is morally wrong (and dishonorable) to disobey one's superior.
2. God has given me a command to take up the occupation of philosophizing.
3. If Socrates is to escape death, then he must quit the occupation of philosophizing.
© Michael Sudduth 1996