I do not agree with not punishing people who do wrong things. I feel that no matter how big the crime or infraction is, there must be punishment, if not then society will keep breaking the rules, and then we would live in an unsafe world, we would not have a sound mind, and be able to function,
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. The state is responsible for taking care of its citizen whether it is in form of education, health or protection and in return the citizen should follow the laws set by the state. Socrates mentioned that “it is impious to bring violence to bear against your mother or father; it is much more so to use it against your country”(Plato
He states that he nor anyone else should not fear that which they do not know. This is why he does not fear death and finds it foolish to do so. Socrates says “No one knows whether death may not be the greatest of all blessings for a man” (Plato 32) and believes that to fear death is “to think oneself wise when one is not” (Plato 32). In this regard he states he is wiser than all men who fear death, for he does not know what death may hold and therefore does not fear it. With the belief of being the wisest of men, Socrates still does not know what will happen upon death; this ignorance may give way to curiosity about death.
Have you personally been substandard before or have seen people treat individuals horrible just because of their race or for the simplicity of their sex? Back in the day citizens were judge on a daily basis prior due to the color of their skin. During the Civil War Slavery was divided into northern and southern states. The northern states fought for the idea of freedom and equality, which means they wanted no more slaves and the Southern states wanted to keep slaves for economical purposes. Also, women were not treated right , at the time men were bias to the idea of equality for women 's rights.
Ignoring the safety of women and the security of people’s property could have resulted into disturbances in his society in the absence of such law or its violation. “He insisted on the rule of law and abolished torture, but he mounted major campaigns to seek out and kill raiding bandits and terrorist assassins”(Weatherford). This made his society secure and
Evidence reveals that human nature can be cruel and unforgiving. Unfortunately genocides still continue to happen today because there are still fascist people in the world who feel superior to other ethnic groups. Events like this teach us that equality is important and that fitting in is not more important than doing the right thing. Future genocides can simply be avoided by awareness. If we keep watch of what is going on in other countries, we can send help to suffering countries who are facing discrimination and stop genocides from getting out of hand.
Although she had a huge support from men from the group, the other men abolitionist still opposed women’s participation in abolitionism. In 1848 in Seneca Falls Convention she drafted the Declaration of Sentiments modeled on the Declaration of Independence where she stressed the inferior status of women and demanded voting rights for women claiming that men and women are equal. The Declaration passed and thus represented a big step forward for gaining the civil, social, political, rights of women. She advocated for universal suffrage for white and black women and later she opposed to Frederick Douglas, who signed the Declaration of Sentiments but did not support the universal suffrage and thought that it is less important than black male suffrage. Later she started to publish a weekly newspaper Revolution jointly with Anthony and Parker Pillsbury.
Because of sexist opinions of the time, many people believed that a woman had no power to create change, especially in government since she could not vote. Women themselves believed this societal expectation, and although Grimke does not reject society’s idea of femininity and womanhood entirely, she specifically rejects their supposed political incompetence in a rebuttal. Using evidence from general and specific political movements in England, all of which were greatly aided by the support of women petitioning the government, Grimke assured her audience that “When the women of these States send up to Congress such a petition our legislators will arise, as did those of England, and say: ‘When all the maids and matrons of the land are knocking at our doors we must legislate.’” (Grimke, 192) This summary of her somewhat vague past points is similarly nonspecific; however, this is still effective since simply alluding to historical events rather than explaining them was sufficient for an audience that knew more about England and its history than contemporary Americans do today.
There was a lack of equality in education which served as an advantage for white Americans as it meant black Americans could not pass their literacy tests to be able to vote. Family, church, and school became the centre of black Americans lives after slavery. With slavery’s abolition, black women often preferred to be homemakers, though poverty forced many back into the
This is due to the fact that England racked up enormous debt and felt the need to end the Era of Salutatory Effect on the American colonists. Early English colonist’s efforts to protect their freedom is not unlike that of efforts of later American citizens of the south in the Civil war. In the mid-1800s America started to form a more comprised government and began to take rule and bring together all of the colonies. Southern states did not want to adhere whenever the capital said to, though they were expected to do so. When the northern states started getting rid of slavery the other half was expected to comply, but southerners were not going to sit back and watch their whole workforce for their main economy be taken away.
Moreover, Socrates’ claims that escaping from prison will “break the covenants and agreements” (37) between him and Athens, and argues that complying with injustice will cause moral harm to himself and to his state, Athens. In Crito, when Crito asks Socrates, that why comply with such crowning absurdity. Socrates answered, “do we ought to follow the opinion of the many and to fear them, or the opinion of the one man who has understanding?” (33). Socrates further explained that disobeying the state laws, by escaping from prison, is a compliance with injustice, rather than agreeing to an unjustified sentence.
In the Crito by Plato, Socrates argues against civil disobedience, seeing it as an unjust act. Contrasting this view, Martin Luther King argues for civil disobedience against unjust laws, and seeing it as a responsibility of citizens. Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain law, commands or requests of the government. I will argue that the view of Socrates is superior to the view of Martin Luther King on the justness of civil disobedience. Using the argument against harm, I will show that even if a law is viewed as unjust, you must not repay an evil with another evil, as evident in the Crito while contrary to ideas presented by MLK.
Position Paper #1: For Socrates’ Argument of Tacit Agreement In The Crito Socrates uses two metaphors to justify his reason for staying in jail and dying instead of leaving Athens and starting a new life in another town. The metaphor he uses that most justifies his reasoning is the argument of tacit agreement, that he agreed to the laws and regulation of Athens when he decided to live there. Socrates knew that living in he agreed to follow all rules that the city had.
Good evening Daniel, Socrates believed if he was sentenced to death, that would mean that the jury felt that he did something immoral or evil. He believed that it showed had done some kind of wrongdoing or evil. Although his confidence was innocence. He accepted what punishment laid before him because he believed that he had done nothing wrong. He refused to give up his devotion to his philosophy.