Even though, the good life caused Socrates an early death. Also, breaking the law may result in harming others and according to Socrates harming others can harm the soul. By harming others one is being unjust and unjust deeds harm the soul. So what is the point of breaking the law if I will be hurt in the end? Furthermore, Socrates would never rationalize breaking the law because it would be violating an agreement made between the citizen and the state.
When it comes to justice, Polemarchus believes that justice is “…helping friends and harming enemies.”. Socrates questions this point of view because according to Polemarchus’ view point, only the people who are close to him and in his circle of friends would be worthy of any kind of Justice. Polemarchus is wrong in this viewpoint because if only the people that you know who are of your similar social status and you interact with on a day to day basis are considered friends, what of those that you do not know? Or what of those who are not of your social status, that you do not interact with? Socrates questions this by asking, “Do you mean by friends those who seem to be good to an individual, or those who are, even if they don't seem to be, and similar with enemies?”.
Therefore, since Athens has a part to play in corrupting Socrates’s life as well as his mistaken visual of the truth, Socrates must understand that by obeying the state, he has done injustice to his soul for it will not be in true harmony. Furthermore he will be doing an injustice to the state because Plato would have established that, objectively, Athens laws are unjust and even if Socrates thinks that they are just, it is only because Socrates has been corrupted by
He also makes it clear that citizens should always do what is considered to be “just”. Crito, along with others, believe that Socrates would be morally wrong for not trying to escape. Crito attempts to persuade Socrates that he should escape out of prison and not doing so is “unjust” because it means he will be leaving his children behind and siding with the unjust people who have put him in jail. Socrates then proceeds to justify his reasons for not escaping by stating that it would be breaking the Laws, which he considers to be an “unjust” thing to do. Therefore, Socrates would rather abide by the Laws than go against the people and escape.
Should Oedipus, be too ‘perfect’ the audience would not be able to find themselves in him and thus would not be able to learn from him, which would contradict the purpose of a tragedy according to Aristotle. In addition, a fatal flaw is essential to the construction of a tragic hero because it provides logicality to his downfall. If the hero were without flaws and was randomly punished, catharsis would not be able to take place because rather than stimulating pity and fear, it would stimulate only “revulsion”
Reasoning is all the positive and opposing arguments that support or critique the thesis by using logic. Socrates was accused and charged with being a corruptor of the youth and denying the gods of the city but introducing other divinities. Socrates defends his case by using reasoning and logic. Socrates said that if every Athenian improved the youth while only he corrupts them, then is influence should not have a greater effect than all the Athenians. Socrates didn’t corrupt the youth.
“To do so is right, and one must not give way or retreat or leave one’s post, but both in war and in courts and everywhere else, one must obey the commands of one’s city and country, or persuade as the nature of justice. It is impious to bring violence to bear against your mother or father; it is much more so to use it against your country.” What we say in reply, Crito, that the laws speak the truth, or not?” (TDS pg 51,52). By breaking the law, Socrates would be disobeying the laws as a citizen, like a child disobeying his parent. By escaping he would have been doing an impious act that would affect his standing with the gods. Therefore, Socrates was willing to die if it meant that his actions would still be
In each event, that what is wrong can be detected by how the outcomes of alleged wrong movements can be. If alleged wrong action has a harmful consequence on one’s life, the act should not be fulfilled. For instance, if someone punched you twice in the stomach, you must not punch him in exchange for this wrong action and you ought to enlighten him/her. Because punching is a wrong act due to the fact that it harms. Moreover, Socrates believes that he comes to an agreement with the city, that is, an implicit agreement or a social
Justice in opposite points of view Plato tries to describe what justice is in reality by the different characters ' points of view in his book “The Republic”. In “The Republic” the characters, such Socrates, Thrasymachus, Glaucon, Cephalus, Adeimantus, Polemarchus give their opinion about justice. The people in the Just city are divided into 3 groups: gold, silver and bronze that means ruler part, guardian part and labor part of citizens. Thrasymachus says that justice is the advantage of the stronger, but Socrates argues that justice is being honest and do own role in society. Firstly, the dialogue between Socrates and Thrasymachus starts with the question that justice is the interest of the stronger or not.
Book One of Plato’s The Republic includes an argument between two individuals, Socrates and Thrasymachus, where they attempt to define the concept of justice. Thrasymachus states that justice is what is advantageous for the stronger, however, Socrates challenges this belief through pointing out holes in Thrasymachus’s argument. In this paper, I will reconstruct the steps of this argument in order to evaluate the claims of both Socrates and Thrasymachus and demonstrate that, Socrates had a stronger claim than Thrasymachus in regards to justice because of the flawed assumptions Thrasymachus makes in relation to the word “advantageous,” how rulers behave, and how government is implemented. His assumptions not only lack external evidence, but Thrasymachus is unable to be critical of the fact that his assumptions just mimic general understandings of the word “advantageous,” without deeper thought of what the word truly means in this context. The argument begins when Thrasymachus first states that, “justice is nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger” (pg.
Socrates makes the point that after being condemned to death in court had the chance to flee to another country as an alternative punishment. Due to this opportunity there would be no point in breaking the law by escaping when he had already had the chance to leave justly. Socrates has stated that “It is better to die with honour than to live in dishonor” and if he were to escape he would be making a very unjust decision that could lead to many implications. If Socrates were to reside in a new country, he would still be known as a man who breaks the law thus giving him a bad reputation. He could not return to his old ways and teach about justice, goodness, institutions and laws are of highest value to people because he would appear to be a hypocrite.
He says, “I do not corrupt, or if I do corrupt, I do it involuntarily, so in both cases what you say is false” (26a, p. 75). He continues by saying that if he corrupts involuntarily, “the law is to bring in those in need of punishment, not learning” (26a, p. 75). This further points out Socrates’s innocence. He believes that he would need to learn of his wrongdoings rather than be punished because he doesn’t see anything wrong with his actions. In his innocent eyes, all he did was go out to talk and question the Athenian people.
15 and No. 32. The freedom of speech and liberty come hand in hand. Those who try to oppose this freedom is attacking liberty itself and should be stopped. According to him, “There are some truths not fit to be told; where for example, the discovery of a small fault may do great mischief; or where the discovery of a great fault can do no good, there ought to be no discovery at all…” (Cato No.