To do harm is to cause injury or damage. In Plato’s writing, “Apology”, his friend and teacher, Socrates, is accused by Meletus, among others, of causing harm to Athens and Athenians by “corrupting the young and of not believing in the gods in whom the city believes, but in other new spiritual things”.(27) Over the course of the trial arguments for both sides are presented, though Socrates’ own defense or “apology”, resonates with enough reason and logic to make his case believable while Meletus is unable to reasonably present an argument proving harm or counter Socrates ’self-defense.

Socrates responds to Meletus’ charge of harming or corrupting Athen’s youth by building a series of arguments in his own defense. The first step requires discrediting Meletus by having Meletus agree with him that it is important to ensure “that our young men be as good as possible”.(27) From there he maneuvers Meletus into admitting that as it is the responsibility of all Athenians to educate and improve the young, no one person, such as Socrates, could possibly be responsible for corrupting them. He continues to reason with Meletus while questioning whether a crime was actually committed. Asking “whether it is better for a man to live among good or wicked fellow citizens”(28), Socrates creates the argument that no one would willingly want to live among bad persons because they would bring harm to those around them. Socrates then compels Meletus into agreeing with him that no one would willingly wish to “be injured” by the evil a “depraved youth” would cause. So why then, Socrates asks, would Socrates willingly “run the risk of being harmed by him”(28) and bring depravity upon himself? He would not, nor would any reasonable person. Since any harm Socrates may have caused would have been done unwillingly, Meletus would not be permitted to charge him because the law will not allow him to be charged for unwilling wrongdoings. Therefore, no crime was willingly committed by Socrates. Additionally, Socrates points out that had he committed a crime, there would be victims. As Meletus is unable to produce any young victims, no crime was committed. As far as the charge of corrupting Athen’s youth, Socrates logically defends himself in a manner in which Meletus could not refute.

The additional charge brought against Socrates by Meletus is also highly defensible. When accused of “not believing in the gods in whom the city believes, but in other new spiritual things”(27), Socrates asks for clarification of the charge. Meletus responds that he is charged with not believing “in any gods at all”.(30) Socrates again begins to discredit Meletus’ reasoning by first correcting his attribution of another scientist’s theories to Socrates and then proceeding to dismantle Meletus’ irregular accusations. Socrates asks how he could possibly believe in “new divinities” yet at the same time be charged with teaching that no gods exist. By pointing out Meletus’ contradictions in the charges, Socrates demolishes his prosecutor’s argument. And to disprove the accusation that he does not believe in gods, Socrates uses several logical arguments. His life has been devoted to unraveling the mystery of the words of the Oracle of Delphi, words sent down by the gods, to the extent that his search has angered and alienated him from many people “Because of this occupation [….] I live in great poverty because of my service to the god”.(26) He also confirms with Meletus the assertion that he speaks of Demons, who were believed to be the offspring of the gods. If he believed in the offspring he would logically believe in the ancestor.

Socrates did not have to work very hard to refute the charges of harm Meletus and the others pressed upon him. Meletus did not have concrete physical evidence in the form of any victims, was not familiar with the youth or their behavior around Socrates, apparently was unfamiliar with the law regarding “knowingly vs. unknowingly causing harm” as well as which theorist believed what, contradicted himself on more than one occasion and did not take Socrates’ ability to reason into consideration before presenting charges. Socrates, on the other hand was logical and reasonable in his presentation of his defense and disproval of the allegations against him. Socrates did not harm the people of Athens with his pursuit of answers for the Oracle of Delphi; rather his accusers did harm by not recognizing or appreciating his dedication and devotion to the gods.