The dialogue between friends, Crito and Socrates, shows the similarities in each thought process as both men are eager to display their integrity to their community. My analysis will show an evaluation of the parallels between Crito’s and Socrates’ understanding of what is morally appropriate. First, I will elaborate on Crito’s argument in which a plan to escape prison is the best choice for both himself and Socrates. Second, it will be important to discuss Socrates’ rebuttal to Crito. This comparison will be accomplished in this paper by contrasting both of their viewpoints.
To be just or to be served an injustice and obey, this is the very basis of the philosophical dialogue between Socrates and Crito. The Crito begins as one of Socrates’ wealthy friends, Crito, offers Socrates a path to freedom—to escape from Athens. Through the ensuing dialogue, Socrates examines, as a man who is bound by principles of justice, whether an unjust verdict should be responded to with injustice. In the dialogue between Socrates and Crito, Socrates outlines his main arguments and principles that prevent him from escaping under such circumstances. Socrates is under guard when Crito visits him, thus the plan to escape.
Civil disobedience is at least as old as Socrates, who preferred to die rather than yield to an order to stop asking questions that embarrassed the authorities, to whom he said, “I shall obey God, rather than you.” The Christian martyrs who refused to deny their God and worship Caligula, Nero, or some other depraved Roman emperor were practicing civil disobedience. All abolitionists, members of the Underground Railroad, and those who refused to obey the Fugitive Slave Act were practicing civil disobedience. History and literature are full of examples. Huckleberry Finn resolved to defy his upbringing and “go to hell” to rescue his best friend, a runaway slave.
Several philosophers have wrestled with ideas to decide under what conditions that humans are morally permitted to disobey the law. Civil disobedience is a concept that both Socrates and Martin Luther King Jr. strongly believed in, but they did not have the same viewpoints on it. Socrates dismissed any form of civil disobedience that got a person into conflict with the State, and Martin Luther King concluded that there were times when a man needed to partake in a protest that was non violent and take disobedient acts in in order to defend his freedom. Socrates believed that if a person lives in a government where he was given the chance to argue his case, he should not practice civil disobedience. Socrates thought that if a person was given
From the beginning of mankind’s recorded history, opposition to established governing bodies have always been recorded. Whether through coup d'etat or a peaceful protest, resistance to authority always causes change in some way. The United States Government changes; laws are meant to change as well. America prides itself on the history of its peaceful protests and revolutions, demonstrating positive effects on a free society. Because peaceful resistance wasn’t creating progressive change, radical disobedience was the key to change in the 1700’s during the American Revolution.
What would a free society be like without peaceful resistance to laws? Would it be better or worse? The question itself is paradoxical; because it is based on the hypothetical negation of an analytic proposition, it makes no more sense than asking what polygons would be like without sides. Polygons, by definition, have sides, just as free society, by definition, has civil disobedience. As Adlai Stevenson explains it, “a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.”
Civil disobedience is when protestors intentionally oppose a law as a way of protest. The ambition behind this is to bring about revising a law or government laws. Rosa Parks displayed this when she stood up or rather sat down for the purpose of what she believed on segregation. Her act of civil disobedience led a 1956 supreme court decision. Born as Rosa Louise McCauley to James McCauley and Leona Edwards, former slaves and advocates for equal rights.
Civil disobedience is a way for people to express themselves on issues that are problematic to society in a peaceful matter. In developed countries like the United States, people have the freedom and a right to be civil disobedience and do so for a better change. Some may see it as a disrespectful way to disrupt the peace and in many communities. It is a dispute between it being right or wrong. Some feel like the power is being taken away from them and they need to do something about it but not cause a scene or disrupt anyone in any way, I believe people have the right to do this because I don't see the problem in someone speaking up something wrong.
Civil disobediences are nonviolent actions or protests that violates the law. People will normally do this when they believe that the government is unjust in the treatment of people. The protests and nonviolent actions are reciprocal reaction to the government to showcase the citizens’ need for justice and equality. The act of civil disobedience requires a lot of patience, bravery, and pain to go against the law in hope of seeing a change. Martin Luther King Jr is well known for his demonstrations of civil disobediences.
Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws and demands of a government. People argue that going against the government is not right and that it is breaking the law. Although in some cases it may not be right, it does not mean it is breaking the law. The Declaration of Independence states, “... whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,” meaning Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness then, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” (Bill of Rights Institute).