Typically, any form or setting of an argument consists of premises and arguments that are followed by well-reasoned conclusions that are usually endorsed by the party that developed the evidence. This form of proof is popularly known as sub-arguments which have for many years been applied in philosophy. This paper gives a better insight into the use of premises and sub-arguments in the Socrate’s case and the contribution they had towards the predetermined conclusions by Socrates.

Also referred to as the Plato’s,  it is an account of apology in the speech and utterances made by Socrates in his trial by an Athenian court for not recognizing the gods. He was also charged with corrupting the Athenian youths in regards to their religious beliefs. Socrates attempts, in this case, is to defend himself and his prior conducts in the community. Historically,  Socrates felt the need to question the said “wise” men in a bid to expose their false wisdom. This, therefore, gained him much admiration from the youths and therefore some felt threatened by him. The use of premises and sub-arguments by Socrates in this case at the Athenian court were majorly directed to Memphis,  who was the man majorly responsible for bringing him to the jury. It is however argued that Socrates use of these arguments, in this case, did not mean to make him apologize but to humiliate and embarrass Meletus.

The central premise used by Socrates worth appreciating is the one “Even if one is unjustly treated, one should not return injustices” (P. 14). This was a strong statement to use especially in a court of law as he had willingly accepted the charges set in front of him. However,  there were additional premises and sub-arguments that the protagonist used in a bid to defend himself and his previous characters. It is important to understand these arguments as the had direct influence on the conclusions made throughout the case. First,  Socrates argued out that he had little experience with the courts of law in Athens, and for this reason being forced to communicate most honestly and directly that he was accustomed to.To some part of the jury,  this was viewed as an act of arrogance to the court of law. Also, it was felt like an argument targeting to humiliate and embarrass the accuser,  Meletus in the court of law. As it will be observed later,  Socrates was sentenced to death by the court of law,  something he felt was not ethical. Additional premises used by Socrates during the trial process include “ To do an unjust act ruins one’s soul”, “To destroy the law, of Athens and the city harms the entire citizens of Athens “, “To harm others is to harm my soul because to harm others is unjust, and doing unjust actions harms my soul”. Such sub-arguments used by Socrates bring out his nature as an innocent soul,  and that he cared more of his society as compared to the accuser. Socrates felt that he wouldn’t corrupt the minds of the youths as being suggested by the court of law as it would consequently harm his soul. All these premises in Socrates prevailing belief that even though he was unjustly treated during the trial, he still should not break the law set before him.

Also,  these premises applied by the protagonist significantly supported the conclusion that he is trying to reach. The most leading end is accepting his punishment and staying in jail and directed by the court of law. For instance,  the premise of how doing an unjust Acton would harm his soul helps in predicting the likely outcome of escaping jail. Therefore in a bid to protect his soul,  Socrates accepts his jail term and ignores the suggestions of Crito that he should escape prison by bribing the security officers. Also when the argument that by avoiding the prison he will be breaking the case he made with the law, encourages him to stay in jail. It is important to note that cutting the argument with the court will be an unjust action that would consequently harm his soul as a person. Therefore,  the main point or evidence presented by Socrates in this case worth appreciating is the fact that he valued justice and prevalence of law and order. He understood well that the sentence offered to him was unjust as he was only representing what he believes in. However, he opted not to escape prison and avoid the punishment awarded to him by the Athenian court. Through his premises and arguments that focused on keeping his word of accepting his sentence, and not revenging by acting unjustly. Keep in mind that his friend Crito was wealthy enough to brine the relevant security officials and thus make the victim escape the death sentence. Therefore,  it is evident that these premises and arguments used by the protagonist support his predetermined conclusions, which was to remain and follow the law.

There exist strong relationships between the premises used in the different settings of this case. Continuously,  Socrates provides sub-arguments in the trial processes, which emphasize not only his innocence, but also his willingness to remain just amidst all the was happening. He even goes ahead and suggests that Meletus does not even care about the youths he claims are being corrupted. Such statements give the reader contradicting signals on who is being unjust between the accuser and the accused.

In conclusion, the premises and sub-arguments used in this particular case point out an innocent Socrates,  who ends up facing the death sentence, even with an opportunity to escape prison. Also,   even after being accused falsely for something he felt he had a little contribution towards, he still suggests that the law should be respected whatsoever. The series of activities that transpire in this case is fundamentally based on arguments and premises that influence the final decisions that are made.

 
Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?