How did Socrates’ actions under both democracy and the Thirty Tyrants show his commitment to justice?

Socrates’ commitment to justice was rooted in the principle of never committing or participating in wrongdoing, regardless of the political regime or the personal danger involved. His actions under both the Athenian democracy and the Thirty Tyrants demonstrated this unwavering moral stance:12

• Under Democracy: Following the Battle of Arginusae in 406 BCE, Socrates served as the president of the assembly. When the majority demanded the illegal execution of admirals without a fair trial, he refused to put the motion to a vote. He maintained this position despite threats from the sovereign people, prioritizing the rule of law and procedural justice over popular will.12
• Under the Thirty Tyrants: When the oligarchic regime ordered him to assist in the arrest of an innocent citizen for the purpose of seizing the man's wealth, Socrates simply disobeyed. He viewed this as a direct command to participate in injustice and refused, even though this act of defiance was arguably more dangerous than his opposition to the democratic assembly.12

Throughout his life, Socrates consistently challenged the inconsistencies of those in power, whether democratic or oligarchic, by questioning their actions and moral integrity.12