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' larger defense of his actions as he tries to avoid drinking the hemlock. Socrates makes two claims: (1) that the jurors cannot harm him and (2) that by executing him, they will harm only themselves. To strengthen his position Socrates relies on the idea of ​​the universe as having an intrinsically rational order. This idea underlies many of the premises of his argument. Socrates asks us to accept his perspective of the universe if we want to validate his logic. Unless we dispute his pre-conditions, there is no flaw in the logic of his argument. Therefore, while his argument is valid, it is incorrect; the premises on which Socrates builds his argument are incorrect. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay(1)Socrates' first statement - that the men of the jury cannot harm him - is based on the premise 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 "allowed for a better man to be harmed by a worse one" (Plato, Apology, 30d, p.35). Although this argument takes place in the Apology, the Phaedo provides more information about why Socrates believes that the universe must be ordered so as to prevent evil from prevailing over good. Socrates states his belief that "it is the Mind that directs and is the cause of everything" (Plato, Phaedo, 97c, p. 135). He finds that the nature of Mind is such that it requires the universe to be governed rationally. As part of that rationality, Mind 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 "better". It is precisely this intuition, taken from the Phaedo, that provides proof of Socrates' statement in the Apology: that the nature of the universe is such that, just as evil cannot prevail over good, it would not be permitted "that a better man be damaged by a worse one” (Plato, Apologia, 30d, p. 35). Once Socrates has established with his logic that a better man cannot be harmed by a worse one, Socrates claims that he is the better man and, consequently, 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. During the trial, Socrates denies the charges against him and claims that, rather than trying to corrupt the young man, he was only seeking the truth. According to Socrates, his mission was given to him by God: “Be sure that this is what God commands me to do, and I think there is no greater blessing for the city than my service to God” (Plato, Apology, 30a ). , page 35). So, from his point of view, Socrates pursued the highest good. He is living the life everyone should strive for. As such, sitting before a jury of men ready to convict him, Socrates considers himself the better man. Consequently, 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, broader statement that he has nothing to fear from death. Since the jury cannot harm him, Socrates has nothing to fear from the punishment it might inflict on him.They could tar and feather him and they still wouldn't be able to harm him. This is a position that Socrates explores further in the Phaedo. According to this logic, death could never result in harm because harm is impermissible given the natural order of good over evil – the natural order that prevents a worse man from harming a better one. If Socrates' reasoning in the Apology is valid, then he would, in fact, be right in finding nothing to fear in the prospect of death. This final statement can be invalidated by taking a closer look at why Socrates believes that the jurors cannot harm him. Socrates believes that the jurors cannot harm him, the best man. His argument is based on two premises; that he is a better man than the jurors and that there is an intrinsically rational order in the universe that requires that better men triumph over worse ones and that good always prevail over evil. This first statement is weak, if only because it is in direct opposition to the charges he is facing at trial. Of course Socrates considers himself a good man: he defends himself on trial! But it is not at all clear how he comes to the conclusion that he is a better man than the jurors. It is based on the idea that his mission was given to him by God and therefore intrinsically good. But the use of the words “better” 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 insight is Socrates' claim to follow the gods. This is not enough, however, because we have no way of knowing whether Socrates is actually following 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 one. . But this is not enough; even if we were to admit that Socrates is a better man than any juror, this does not prove that he could not be harmed by them. This insight comes from Socrates' belief in a rational, ordered universe in which good would not be allowed to triumph over evil. He describes this intuition when he states that the Mind “directs everything and arranges everything in the best way” (Plato, Phaedo, 97c, p. 135). Socrates believes that the mind operates based on pure rationality. Rationality dictates that good must always triumph over evil. But Socrates' belief is mere intuition. He simply describes those beliefs that lead him to believe in a rationally ordered universe, and never tries to justify them. Socrates provides no evidence that “the Mind” must operate in this way. We have no more reason to believe in Socrates' view of the universe than to believe in a view that sees the world as inherently arbitrary and unjust. We can ask whether Socrates' belief in “good” rationality is based on his belief in the gods. Perhaps it is safe that the gods would order the universe only in such a way as to ensure that good always wins over evil. But this is simply Socrates' belief. It's not something for which there is any kind of evidence. Ultimately, then, his argument that the jurors cannot harm him is valid, but not sound, because the structure of his argument is logical, but provides no convincing evidence to justify his premises. The arguments that Socrates uses to defend his claim that the jurors cannot harm him are., 2002.