In the Apologies, Socrates tries to convince the jurors that if they kill him, they will only harm themselves. This argument is part of Socrates' broader defense of his actions as he seeks to avoid drinking hemlock. Socrates makes two claims: (1) that the jurors cannot harm him, and (2) that by executing him, they will only harm themselves. To strengthen his position, Socrates relies on an idea of ​​the universe as having an intrinsically rational order. This idea is the basis of many premises of his argument. Socrates asks us to accept his perspective of the universe if we want to validate his logic. Unless we challenge his preconditions, there is no flaw in the logic of his argument. So, even if his argument is valid, it is not valid; the premises on which Socrates builds his argument are erroneous. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essay(1)Socrates' first assertion – that the men on the jury cannot harm him – relies on the principle that a better man cannot be harmed by a worse one. It does not seem plausible to Socrates that the order of things allows evil to triumph over good; it would not be “permissible for a better man to be injured by a worse one” (Plato, Apology, 30d, p. 35). Although this argument takes place in the Apology, the Phaedo gives a better idea of ​​why Socrates believes that the universe must be ordered in such a way as to prevent evil from overcoming good. Socrates declares his conviction that “it is the Spirit which directs and is the cause of everything” (Plato, Phaedo, 97c, p. 135). He finds that the nature of Mind is such that it would require the universe to be governed rationally. Within the framework of this rationality, the Spirit would only allow things to happen “in the best way” (Plato, Phadeo, 97d, p. 135). According to this conception, good cannot triumph over evil because rationality tells us that it would not be “best”. It is this very intuition, coming from the Phaedo, which provides proof of Socrates' assertion in the Apology: that the nature of the universe is such that, just as evil cannot prevail over good , it would not be permitted “for a better man to be injured by a worse one” (Plato, Apology, 30d, p. 35). Once Socrates establishes through his logic that a better man cannot be harmed by a worse one, Socrates claims that he is the better man, and therefore the jurors cannot harm him. The success of Socrates' claim that the jurors cannot harm him rests on the validity of his claim to be a better man. Throughout his trial, Socrates denies the accusations against him and asserts that, rather than attempting to corrupt the youth, he only sought the truth. According to Socrates, his mission is given to him by God: “Be sure that this is what God commands me to do, and I think that there is no greater good for the city than to serve God” (Plato, Apology, 30a). , p.35). Thus, from his own perspective, Socrates pursues the highest good. He lives the life that everyone should aspire to. As a man, sitting before a jury of men ready to condemn him, Socrates considers himself the better man. Accordingly, the jurors cannot harm him because they cannot be better than him, and something that is "worse" cannot be harmed by something that is "better." This conclusion, that the jurors cannot harm him, is applicable to Socrates' thinking. later, a broader assertion that he has nothing to fear from death.Since the jury cannot harm him, Socrates has nothing to fear from any punishment they might inflict on him. They could tar and feather him without being able to harm him. This is a position that Socrates explores in more detail in the Phaedo. By this logic, death could never bring harm, because evil is impermissible given the natural order of good over evil—the natural order that prevents a worse man from harming a better man. If Socrates' reasoning for the excuses is sound, then he would indeed be right in finding nothing to fear in the prospect of death. This last statement can be invalidated by looking more closely at why Socrates believes that the jurors cannot harm him. Socrates believes that the jurors cannot harm him, the best being the man. His argument rests on two premises; that he is a better man than the jurors, and that there is an inherently rational order in the universe that requires that better men triumph over worse, and that good always triumphs over evil. This first assertion is weak, if only because it directly opposes the accusations made against him during his trial. Of course, Socrates considers himself a good man – he defends himself at trial! But it's not at all clear how he comes to the conclusion that he is a better man than the jurors. It relies on the idea that its mission is God-given and therefore intrinsically good. But the use of the words “best” and “worse” in his argument seems somewhat arbitrary because we do not know how Socrates discerns that he is better than the jurors. The only justification for this intuition is Socrates' assertion that he follows the gods. This is not enough, however, because we have no way of knowing that Socrates actually follows the gods. He could be lying. As a result, we lack a logically defensible understanding of how to qualify what is “better” or “worse.” Since we cannot arrive at these judgments without relying on Socrates' intuition, his argument is not sufficient. The second premise that Socrates uses to support his initial claim (that the jurors cannot harm him) is that a better man cannot be harmed by a worse man. . But that is not enough; even if we were to admit that Socrates is a better man than any of the jurors, that does not prove that they could not harm him. This intuition comes from Socrates' belief in a rational and ordered universe in which good could not triumph over evil. He describes this intuition when he asserts that the Spirit “would direct everything and arrange everything in the best way” (Plato, Phaedo, 97c, p. 135). Socrates believes that the mind functions on the basis of pure rationality. Rationality dictates that good must always triumph over evil. But Socrates' conviction is just a simple intuition. He only describes the convictions that lead him to believe in a rationally ordered universe, and never attempts to justify them. Socrates provides no evidence that the “Mind” must function in this way. We have no more reason to believe in Socrates' view of the universe than in that which considers the world to be intrinsically arbitrary and unjust. It is questionable whether Socrates' belief in "good" rationality rests on his belief in the gods. Perhaps he is convinced that the gods would only order the universe in such a way as to ensure that good always triumphs over evil. But this is only a simple belief of Socrates. This is not something for which there is any evidence. Ultimately, his argument that the jurors cannot harm him is valid, but not valid, because the structure of his argument is logical,., 2002.