Socrates- freedom of thought and speech!!!!

1. Socrates- freedom of thought and speech!!!! Made by: Katia McDowell and Radajia Thomas 11/18/13 2b

2. Summarize the protest of freedom of speech!!!! • The people knew that Socrates was doing molestation so they was wondering why was he getting a trial. Finding an answer to the mystery of the trial of Socrates is complicated by the fact that the two surviving accounts of the defense of Socrates both come from disciples of his Plato and Xenophon.  • The standing of Socrates among his fellow citizens suffered mightily during two periods in which Athenian democracy was temporarily overthrown. Athenians undoubtedly considered the teachings of Socrates especially his expressions of disdain for the established constitution partially responsible for the resulting death and suffering. • In the final vote, a larger majority of jurors favored a punishment of death than voted in the first instance for conviction.  According to Diogenes Laertius, 360 jurors voted for death, 140 for the fine.  Under Athenian law, execution was accomplished by drinking a cup of poisoned hemlock.

3. Identify the perceived injustice!!!! • "Socrates is guilty of refusing to recognize the gods recognized by the state and introducing other, new divinities. He is also guilty of corrupting the youth. The penalty demanded is death." • The indictment was posted in the temple that housed the city archives. Since the law against impiety was general, the charge of impiety had to be specified. • Note that the one charge is impiety, and that these three claims explain the ways in which Socrates was impious. Furthermore, the law did not stipulate the penalty for impiety. Hence, the penalty was proposed by the person who was prosecuting the case. (If a defendant was found guilty, it was up to him to offer a counter penalty. The jury was then left to decide between the two punishments).

4. SocratesTaking Action • Socrates wanted his students to question things. "Is our government good? If gods exist, where do they live?" • This angered some of the wealthy nobles in ancient Athens, not many, but a few. They accused Socrates of mocking the gods. They demanded a trial. If found guilty, anyone who mocked the gods would be killed.

5. SocratesTaking Action cont. • Socrates thought it was ridiculous. He could not believe that anyone would find him guilty. He refused to defend himself. If he had presented a defense, the jury most probably would have found him innocent. But, since he said nothing, the jury had no choice but to find him guilty.  • If you were found guilty in ancient Athens, the punishment was death. Rather than have the citizens of Athens kill him, Socrates took poison and died. He was seventy years old at the time.

6. Compare and contrast/ Socrates • Unlike 'civil disobedience' in the modern context, which as I understand it functions to change specific unjust state practices, Socrates' disobedience is entirely self-centered, his refusals are not of any general rule applying to everyone, but of specific edicts making demands on him. Even the case of the trial of the 10, he acted so as not to commit the very literal injustice of disobeying the standing law that each person be granted individual trial. His refusal to play along with the 30 was not so much a political objection to their actions as an unwillingness to cooperate in an unjust execution. He did not speak out against it; he simply went home.

7. Compare and contrast/ Thoreau • He is, he seems to think, temporarily “in civilized life again.”  He believes, that is, he was not “in civilized life” when he was on “the shore of Walden Pond.”  We must wonder, however, how much “alone” anyone could be a mere mile “from any neighbor,” “in Concord, Massachusetts,” within walking distance of the Athens of North America.  How much alone is a man when he knows that his native community is immediately available to him, when he knows that he can draw at will upon its resources and its people?

8. Why or why not is this civil disobedience? • This is civil disobedience because Socrates like to follow his laws. I think it is not. You can logically want change and not be civilly disobedient as was the case with 'the white moderates' from the letter, as well as be civilly disobedient and not want change. Socrates is an example of the second case. In “The Apology” Socrates questions the social order because he believes it is not right. Socrates says ‘When you wished to try the generals, who did not rescue their men after the battle, in a body which was against the law, as you all came to think afterwards, my tribe held the presidency. On that occasion I alone of all the presidents opposed your illegal action, and gave my vote against you.Socrates is civilly disobedient in the sense that he does not conform to the masses. In my view Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is the same. His motif for civil disobedience is the fact that there exist an unjust set of laws that are not in conjunction with ‘natural laws’, which the masses seem to be following due compulsion and lack of question. Thus Socrates and Dr. King are civilly disobedient in principle that they also refuse to conform to the popular laws and instead favor what Socrates says is ‘Truth’, and what Dr. King says are ‘God given Rights’, which according to me are one and the same thing. In conclusion, Socrates is civilly disobedient. To quote Socrates yet again, “That government with all its power did not terrify me into doing anything wrong.”