Analysis of Argument of Who Improves the Lives of Young People in Apology 24d-25c)
The analysis of this paper looks at Socrates defense that he does not corrupt the youth of Athens. Specifically, the paper examines the passage from Apology (24d-25c). “Come, then, and tell these jurors ” to “Of course it is, whether you and Anytus say so or not”” will be addressed and considered.
First the conclusion of the argument Socrates makes is prefaced by the accusation that Socrates has been charged with corruption of the youth and not believing in the gods the city of Athens believes (24b). It is helpful to separate between Socrates argument, and the argument Socrates is arguing against in the dialogue. The argument that Meletus brings is that Socrates corrupts the youth of Athens. Socrates makes the counter-argument that only one person improves the youth of Athens, and it is impossible to state that all the people of Athens improve the young and only one person improves their life.
First, the argument stems from the drama of the dialogues. Socrates has been guilty of corrupting the young, but Socrates retorts that Meletus, his accuser, is guilty of “dealing frivolously with serious matters” of dragging Socrates irresponsibly into court in the first place. The basis of the argument is that the charge against Socrates is unfounded because Mellitus and the men who accuse him do not really believe in the charges.
Socrates makes several points that Meletus his accuser has never cared about Socrates’s life and his dealings with the young. Socrates makes the further point that his argument tries to prove that the charges the of the men of Athens, spurred by Meletus are about things that he never really cared about until now. Socrates observes that Meletus claims he wants the young people to be “good.” The concept of the good is hardly something that can be easily obtained. The people of Athens who sit in accusation claim that they have the young people’s better interest by their desire to improve their lives. Socrates questions their ability to make them good.
The men claim they have discovered in Socrates, the man who corrupts the youth. Socrates attacks Mellitus’s argument by breaking down the assumption that all the men of Athens improve the young while Socrates alone corrupts them. Although he assumes that the accusation that he corrupts, the youth mean that no one else corrupts the youth. However, in any case we can reformulate Mellitus’s argument in the following way: Only the men of Athens improve the young people. Only Socrates corrupts them. So, therefore, Socrates alone corrupts the youth of Athens.
It would be better, Socrates, says if only one man corrupted the youth, while everyone else improved their lives. However, Socrates argues that this is not the state of affairs. It is a few who try to improve the lives of those they are closest. Socrates makes an argument via analogy. It is like saying that all men improve the lives of domesticated horses, but only one man corrupts them. However, Socrates says the opposite is true. For in caring for horses only one man improves them, or a few people improve their lives. It is, usually, the other horse carer, or those few in charge of the horses. The majority of people abuse and corrupt the horses by using them. Now, Socrates makes the assumption that use is the same as corrupt. Socrates does make the assumption that to use something is the same thing as to corrupt something. Socrates is the horse caretaker in the analogy. The horses are the young people, while those who use (corrupt the horses) are Mellitus, Antyus, and the rest of the council who have brought charges against Socrates. So if Socrates is the caretaker then he would not intentionally harm the horses, and wouldn’t the law be followed by him trying his best to improve them, so, it could not be intentional that he is seeking to harm them. The people use the horses, and this is intentional, so Socrates is saying that it is Mellitus and Antyus who intentionally harm the young, and not he.
The major assumption of the argument is the claim that Socrates alone corrupts the young people. He relies on the unstated assumption that the men of Athens have knowledge of the law, and it is the law itself that the men use to base their claim that they improve the life of the young. Following the law (that Socrates has been charged with breaking) make the men of Athens the sole source of the "good." They alone can provide for the young through education. Socrates then makes the clever twist that since it is the law that undergirds the men of Athens’s claim that they improve the young, then it is simply all of Athens that improve the young, but not Socrates. All of the people improve the young, from the assembly members to the council to Mellitus, to presumably everyone in the city. However, doesn’t Socrates follow the law? Later he will say that he will not run away from Athens to escape his sentence, and he allows himself to be interrogated according to the law. Can Mellitus give one example of Socrates explicitly breaking the law?
Meletus could easily object that Socrates is saying that everyone in the city improves the young because they follow the law. Meletus could object that he is saying that the values of the community improve the lives of the young, and it is the values that he is accusing Socrates of disregarding. Even if one of the men of Athens corrupts the youth, it still does not take away Meletus’s claim that it is the law that upholds the beliefs of the city. In other words, Meletus could object that Socrates is confusing the accusation that he alone corrupts the youth of Athens as if it is a universal statement applicable always and everywhere.
Meletus could object that to compare students with horses is not fair. People use horses to get around, to work their fields, and to supplement human activity. To use a horse is not to corrupt it but to let it live out its purpose. A student in Athens is not the same thing as horses. Although Socrates is saying, or implying, that the men of Athens are using the young people in the same way they use horses. Meletus does not object to this deeper accusation; nor does he object to Socrates’s claim that they abuse the young, and do not care for them.
Could not Meletus simply say that Socrates at this point in time is disregarding the mandates of the community, and since Socrates refuses to stop, he is violating the norms of the city council and the accusation against him is for him to educate the young no longer. Meletus could also argue that, yes, it is the law that supports the improvement of the young, and the law of Athens is also based on the belief in its gods. By not accepting those gods, and by choosing to follow his way, Socrates is removing himself from the community. Meletus could argue that he is only protecting the law and the customs of the city.
Socrates could save the argument by asking the court to give evidence of his corruption. How does he corrupt the youth? What is the empirical evidence of his corruption? If the court is saying that they know Socrates is solely responsible for corrupting the youth, then the burden of proof is on the court to provide evidence. What does corruption look like, and how does the court know that Socrates has corrupted the youth? The dialogue never explicitly states what the nature of Socrates’s crime is. In what manner did he corrupt? Socrates could argue that that the youth he did teach are part of the same group of men that seek to accuse him. If these same men say that they improve the lives of the young, then don’t also the young improve the lives of the city? How is the action of Socrates making the young less likely to improve the lives of the city?
