III. Argument Socrates main point was to change the mind of the court while pleading his case. Socrates attempted and failed to use two tactics to disprove Meletus accusations, which was an analogy and an argument. Meletus charges Socrates with corrupting the youth and being an evil doer. While trying to disprove the charges Socrates chooses to inadvertently alter his charges twice. Socrates inadvertently altered his first charge by using the Horse Trainer Analogy. Socrates does this while attempting to include an analogy between horse trainers and the youth, and in doing so he alters his charges from being a corrupter of Athens youth to being the only corrupter of young people in Athens. The second inadvertent alter was the Unintentional Argument. Socrates inadvertently altered his second charge when he stated “If he did intentionally corrupt the youth, he should have been …show more content…
Socrates logically explained how the Horse Trainer Analogy and the youth exhibited similarities. Just as with the initial charge the altered unintentional argument also efficaciously refutes Socrates being the only causation for corruption of the youth of Athens. Granted, Socrates is brought to trial and no-one else in regards to these charges, there is no clear and concise proof that Socrates is the sole corruptor of youth. Unlike the Horse Trainer Analogy, the Unintentional Argument is faulty. Though, Socrates leading argument in the UA is logical. It reminds you of the “golden rule”, to do unto others as you would have done unto you. It is assumed that if you do wrong unto others, that in return harm will return to you at some point. Nonetheless, that is not always the case. Innumerable examples throughout history contradicts Socrates UA. Socrates argues that he has not corrupted the youth because based on the UA If he had trained them to do harm, then in return harm will come unto