Argument for Impossibility of Willing Corruption

Why is it impossible for Socrates to have willingly corrupted the youth and why,

consequently, is his accuser’s argument contradictory? Socrates has been accused of

corrupting the youth and is now on trial for this corruption. More specifically, Meletus—

the accuser presently examining Socrates—accuses him of deliberate corruption of the

youth (25d5). Socrates breaks down this accusation into several questions that eventually

reveal the contradictory nature of Meletus’ prosecution when taking into account human

nature’s aversion to harm.

To begin, Socrates asks Meletus a question that requires an easy, definite answer:

is it not likely that wicked people can harm those around them, and accordingly, wouldn’t

it be preferable to surround oneself with good people (25c7-8)? This initial question

logically cannot produce another answer other than yes; it would be preferable to be

surrounded by good people. The answer to Socrates’ initial question proves to be certain

because it is intuitive: if Meletus had answered, “yes,” his response would have gone

against human nature. Socrates has asked a question with only one possible answer and

therefore sets up a series of questions with more or less predictable answers that

eventually undermines the entirety of the prosecution. Socrates’ second question

addresses human nature in relation to harm: namely, if anyone would prefer to be harmed

by rather than benefit from the people surrounding him (25d3). Again, Socrates has

asked Meletus a question that can only receive one possible response, since it is a

question addressing human nature, which cannot be altered with persuasion. Essentially
Socrates is asking Meletus to provide an inventory of things he believes regarding human

nature’s aversion to harm. Furthermore, this fundamental avoidance of harm would

ensure that all people would seek the company of good while avoiding the company of

the wicked, to ensure benefit and evade destruction, respectively. By taking all of the

statements Meletus has agreed with, Socrates illuminates the contradiction of Meletus’

argument.

These initial questions, coupled with Meletus’ answers, allow Socrates once again

to address the accusation of deliberate corruption: how can the jury expect Socrates to

corrupt those around him when he runs the risk of harming himself in the process?

Particularly, how can the jury reasonably suspect that Socrates has committed crimes that

would cause his own harm, an act so contrary to preferences involved in human nature?

Wouldn’t Socrates surround himself with beneficial people, since he remains fully aware

of the likely outcome? Socrates presents the argument of his accuser as illogical

contradictions because no one would deliberately invite harm into his or her life. Meletus

cannot possibly believe that Socrates is merely so ignorant as to remain unaware that

harmful people may cause harm to himself (25e2-3) because this level of ignorance

would proceed contrary to human nature and its avoidance of harm when possible.

Meletus has already agreed upon and established that no one willingly harms others

because of the possibility of resultant harm to the self, but he has concurrently accused

Socrates of harming others. Socrates refuses to accept that Meletus believes Socrates

remains ignorant to a level that contradicts basic, common sense.

 Through his first series of questions, Socrates has more or less eliminated the

possibility of willing corruption. A logical discussion of human nature points to an

avoidance of harm. When coupled with common sense, this preference to avoid harm

leads to an aversion to surrounding oneself with harmful people since common sense

indicates harmful people have the power to damage the individual. With his elimination

of the possibility of willing corruption, Socrates presents two possibilities regarding the

truth of his actions, either of which would prove his innocence. According to Socrates,

“. . . either I do not corrupt the young or, if I do, it is unwillingly” (26a1). He arrives at

this conclusion with a step-by-step process of clarification regarding the crime for which

he is being accused along with an examination of human nature in regards to harm.

Either of these possibilities would point to an unfair trial because the first option would

prove his innocence, rendering his trial unjust and unnecessary, while the second one

would require intervention rather than lawful proceedings. More specifically, if his crime

turns out to be unwilling, it would require private instruction rather than a public trial

(26a3-4). Since none of his accusers have previously approached him with the intention

of private correction and instruction, Socrates points to an unfair trial. Socrates has

eliminated the possibility of willing corruption through a focused examination of human

nature and has therefore created an argument underlying the contradictory nature of the

accusations against him.