As a modern person who believes in freedom of speech and doesn't believe in the death penalty, I would vote to acquit, because I don't think people deserve to die for expressing unpopular opinions.
If I lived in Classical Athens, however, I would have a whole different set of values (and, as a woman, I wouldn't be allowed to serve on a jury at all).
It's tempting to assume that, because the government of Athens was called a democracy, it was in some way analogous to modern democracies, but it was very different. Among other things, the Athenians practiced Ostracism, meaning that all of the citizens would take a shard of pottery (an ostrakon) and write down the name of the man they considered the greatest threat to the polis--and that man would be banished from the city for 10 years. This wasn't a treatment reserved for the worst of the worst criminals--several prominent statesmen were ostracized, due to fears that they would amass too much power.
Socrates wasn't ostracized, but I think it's relevant to keep in mind that the Athenians considered it acceptable to remove from society someone they considered a threat to the group, even if that person hadn't committed what we would think of as a crime. Socrates crime was that he encouraged his students to question society, and in the process, he got on the bad side of several prominent men in the city. Today, we would be horrified at the idea of executing someone as a political dissident. But if we grew up in a society that considered it normal, we would, too.
Socrates (c. 470 BCE – c. 399 BCE) was an outstanding Greek philosopher. He is often remembered as the first of the great three of ancient Greek philosophy: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. In fact, we know little of his life or of the arguments made at his trial. His writings were lost, and his ideas were passed on by his philosophical successors, especially Plato. Socrates featured prominently in Plato's books.
Socrates came from a humble family and may have worked as a mason. It is not known whether or not he was paid for his teaching. He served in the Athenian infantry during the war against Sparta.
Socrates stressed the importance of human reason. He said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." He thought the best government would be one led by men who possessed knowledge and virtue.
His ideas were controversial in Athens and ultimately resulted in his trial and death. Athens had lost a war with Sparta, and its place in the world was uncertain. Many felt Socrates contributed to that uncertainty by questioning Athens's established norms and rulers. After his trial, the vote to convict him was 280 to 221. He probably could have avoided death by going into exile, but this alternative did not interest him. Socrates bravely met his death: "The end of life is to be like God, and the soul following God will be like Him."
Today, it is easy to criticize the 280 men who condemned one of the greatest thinkers in human history. But people who feel threatened do not act rationally. That was true in the time of Socrates, and it still is true today.
Speaking personally, I would've voted to acquit Socrates. First and foremost, I would've done so because the charges against him—impiety against the gods and the corruption of youth—were manifestly absurd and had no evidence to back them up.
The second main reason for voting to acquit Socrates would be that he was a great man, a wise man who provided profound new insights into the human condition on a variety of different subjects. Socrates understood that philosophy—which literally means "the love of wisdom"—was primarily concerned with ethics, with what kind of life we choose to lead and how we behave towards others.
Yes, this strange-looking man, with his ugly face and disheveled clothing could be more than a little irritating at times, as he went about Athens questioning people on what they knew about the meaning of justice, for example. But there was a good reason behind Socrates's approach: he wanted nothing more than to get at the truth. And even if we might disagree with Socrates over his methods or his conclusions, it seems harsh to say the least to put him to death for trying to make people think seriously about life's big questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment