Download Socrates- freedom of thought and speech!!!!

SOCRATES- FREEDOM OF
THOUGHT AND SPEECH!!!!
Made by: Katia McDowell and Radajia Thomas
11/18/13 2b
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.
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).
Socrates
Taking 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.
Socrates
Taking 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.
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.
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?
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.”