Democracy, Judgment, and Justice Theme Analysis

In his apologia, Socrates suggests that the truth—along with the Athenian judicial system—ought not to be denigrated by deceit and frivolity. However, he also suggests that “a man who really fights for justice must lead a private, not a public life.” This is because he believes it’s nearly impossible to “survive” as an honest person while participating in public affairs, thereby hinting at the fact that, though he respects the importance of the surrounding democratic institutions, he doesn’t think Athens has succeeded thus far in holding itself to its own standards. Nonetheless, he abides by the jury’s conviction, ultimately demonstrating his willingness to adhere to the current judicial system despite its many flaws. In this way, Socrates proves that it’s possible to be staunchly critical of something and nevertheless believe in it. In fact, his actions hint at the fact that criticism and disagreement are actually indications of just how much a person cares about something, since only those who are truly committed to a certain worldview or institution are willing to take the time to examine it thoughtfully.

When Socrates first begins his defense, he makes a point of addressing the jury as the “men of Athens.” In doing so, he reminds his listeners not only that they are his fellow citizens, but that they have been assembled to determine what’s best for their polis, Athens. To understand the significance of the jurors’ duty to Athens itself, it’s helpful to consider editor John M. Cooper’s footnote, which appears at the beginning of Socrates’s defense in Hackett Publishing’s 2002 version of the text. “Jurors were selected by lot from all the male citizens thirty years of age or older who offered themselves on the given day for service,” Cooper writes. “They thus functioned as representatives of the Athenian people and the Athenian democracy. In cases like Socrates’, they judged on behalf of the whole citizen body whether or not their interests had been undermined by the accused’s behavior.” In light of this, it makes sense that Socrates goes out of his way to remind the jurors that they are representatives of “the Athenian people,” since this is a subtle way of encouraging them to consider the fact that they are the backbone of the city’s democratic system. After all, democracy is a mode of governance that allows for disagreement and free thinking. As such, Socrates frames his attempt to challenge the city’s most complacent intellectuals as nothing more than a free-thinking effort to improve Athens—something the jurors should understand, since they themselves are also presumably working to maintain a healthy democracy.

Just before Socrates receives the death penalty, he explains why he hasn’t called in witnesses to speak on his behalf and why he hasn’t broken into tears and apologized for his actions. Simply put, he respects the process of judgment and the pursuit of truth too much to denigrate it by doing anything other than honestly presenting his case. “It is not the purpose of a juryman’s office to give justice as a favor to whoever seems good to him, but to judge according to law, and this he has sworn to do,” he says. “We should not accustom you to perjure yourselves, nor should you make a habit of it.” In this moment, Socrates acknowledges that using emotionally manipulative tactics may very well have made it easier for him to escape this trial unharmed. However, he believes that doing this would not only demean himself, but put the jurors in “a habit of” going against all that their polis stands for: justice according to the law. This is something he’s unwilling to do. Rather, he would prefer to abide by the honest assessment of the jurors—despite what they may decide—because this is the only way to respect the system of governance in which he and his fellow Athenians currently exist. 

It's worth noting that there is much debate in the scholarly community about whether or not Socrates believed in democracy. Many uphold that he was against this mode of governance because of the grave misgivings he expresses in Plato’s The Republic. However, others believe these ideas belong more to Plato than to Socrates himself, since The Republic was written long after Socrates’s death. In Apology, on the other hand, Socrates is critical of the ways in which his fellow Athenians are running the democracy, but he isn’t necessarily critical of democracy itself. Simply put, his criticism can actually be read as an indication that he wants this mode of governance to succeed.

In Apology, Socrates does not hesitate to express his doubts about the current state of affairs, and this is the exact kind of thinking that led to his trial in the first place, since he refuses to shy away from criticizing what he sees as imperfect. As such, he now voices his opinion that the present political climate is unfit for honest individuals. Explaining why he has neglected throughout his life to accept a role as an orator or other official, he says, “A man who really fights for justice must lead a private, not a public, life if he is to survive for even a short time.” Going on, he says that honesty is incompatible with the way public officials are expected to behave. “Do you think I would have survived all these years if I were engaged in public affairs and, acting as a good man must, came to the help of justice and considered this the most important thing?” he asks. “Far from it, men of Athens, nor would any other man.” By saying this, he asserts that the men currently running the polis do not consider justice “the most important thing.”

In this way, Socrates maintains that Athens is corrupt and failing to live up to its potential as a just and honest democracy. And yet, he still has no qualms about accepting the jury’s conclusion to sentence him to death, thereby suggesting that he respects this model of governance at least enough to abide by it even when he knows it is flawed. In turn, he demonstrates that respecting something does not preclude one from criticizing it, and vice versa.