24/7 writing help on your phone
Save to my list
Remove from my list
At a trial relying upon life or death, Socrates must defend himself against the charge of corrupting the youth. Socrates in his defense argues that the alleged corruption is not intentional. As claimed, it is unlikely the human race deliberately causes harm upon others but preferably act in a way one holds to be thought of as good. He further proposes that bad, or evil, is solely committed in a state of ignorance and not the actual motive to invoke evil.
The concept seems to be argumentative due to some human beings periodically executing acts that are obviously vile. This can stem from arrogance or an impulsive behavior, against their own virtues.
Yet, if one observes the logics supporting human behaviors and drive, the conception starts to be justificable. Good and evil, moral and immoral are generally related to human behaviors as Socrates has strongly signified that many causes corruption and few promotes improvement. An individual doesn’t seek to advance society as a whole, rather what is deemed to bring them a substantial benefit.
This is valid even for deeds that seem to be unselfish. As an instance, someone would donate various things to charity since it makes them feel better individually, and they discover satisfaction in helping others as a greater benefit than ultimately keeping this thing for themselves. Even though a person recognizes their generous intentions, it might not apparently correlate with their desires.
Socrates directly addresses Meltus stating “ you consider it of the greatest importance that our young men be as good as possible-Indeed I do.
Come then, tell these men who improves them”. Certainly Meletus finds himself temporarily at a lost, for which he must acknowledge that there’s no specialist (besides Socrates) in this field. As Meltus is lead to the conformation that “[all] the Athenians, it seems, make the young into good men, except [Socrates], and [he] alone corrupt them. This statement demonstrates absurdity for everyone else destroys what is delicately maintained based upon their self-motivated impulse to benefit themselves.
Moreover, Socrates additionally defended that it opposes the character of human beings to deliberately impose self-harm . In the Apology, he asserts that: “I have reached a pitch of ignorance that I do not realize this, namely that if I make one of my associates wicked I run risk of being harmed by him so that I do such a great evil deliberately”. Socrates believed that any behaviors bringing about harm to others are simply credited by unawareness or ignorance. One can concede that “moral weakness” truly exists. The term can be defined as a person acting against their better judgement, fully aware of its consequences, but still follows through under influence of passion or instability. Specifically, a gambler realizes the unfavorable outcomes of gambling, but does it anyways, not being able to withstand the urge.
This statement appears to refute the concept of harming oneself knowingly, but the pair are no less incompatible. Moral weakness, presumably, can be a model of ignorance by one lacking knowledge of how to conquer their addiction. Conversely, one can be concealed with passion or grief that taking the wrong turn is their only option and no longer a choice. Thus if an individual is conscious of their wrongdoings, but unconscious of how the external or internal effects compel them to carry out these actions, they are doing so in a state of ignorance and not to intentionally cause self-harm. “Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong behavior” are formerly referred as morality (Oxford Living Dictionaries) and have employed the brains of philosophers for hundreds of years.
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.get help with your assignment