Socrates was charged with corrupting the youth and introducing new gods. I think that they decided to bring him to court purely because he was disturbing the peace. There really is no legitimate charge. The people of Greece seemed to make up some reason for Socrates to be tried, I mean, does "corrupting the youth" really sound like an offence? Introducing new gods, on the other hand, could possibly be more of a reason to bring someone to court, as the gods were a huge part of their culture. I still think, though, that they just needed a reason to go to court.
To answer the second question, I ask the question: can someone's trial be considered fair if their charges are illegitimate? Socrates in Euthipho debates with Euthiphro about the reasons behind his charges. He is a very logical person, and his charges don't seem to be born out of any logic at all. It would be quite difficult to battle with logic, against something illogical. If there is no logic in the accusation, than logic isn't likely to help him in his defence.
Socrates probably knows how the culture works, as he lives in Greece himself, but he doesn't necessarily believe everything the other Greeks do. Since his accusers can relate to majority of the people in the country, I would assume, Socrates doesn't stand much of a chance. It is unfair, but there would be a whole lot of bias in the court, and that is one thing that logic won't help him get out of.
Good work, Julia. You point out a number of crucial problems with the charges and trial brought against Socrates. However, your argument is weakened because you don't make specific references back to the text (and to Socrates' actions within the Athenian community) to show the illegitimacy of the charges. Does he corrupt the youth? Is this the purpose of the Socratic method? Your argument is good - it just needs more specificity.
ReplyDelete