Melatus claimed that Socrates " did not believe in the gods in whom city believes but in other new divinities" and at the same time accused him for not believing in any Gods (26c-27a). There is a contradiction. Socrates cannot at the same time be an atheist and believe in other new divinities. Therefore, Socrates defended himself by asking a question "if anyone believes in human affairs but not in humans, in equine affairs but not in horses, in flute music but not in flute players " and then asked if any man believed in divine activities but not in divinities? ( 27b-d).
Polus believes doing whatever is good for oneself is what matters. He does not understand or really accept this claim that it is better to suffer injustice than to commit injustice because he believes justice is relative. Polus claims that he believes justice depends on the individual person and what is beneficial for oneself. However, Socrates denounces this idea that only good matters this in his scene of brutal murder when Socrates says “and if it seems good to me that one of them must have his head smashed, it shall straightway be smashed” (469d5). Polus denounces this instance, saying it is different.
Hyejin Jang Professor Writing DED 8 April 2016. 4. 7. Kant’s ethics differs from utilitarian ethics both in its scope and in the precision with which it guides action. In The Categorical Imperative, Kant emphasizes that human autonomy is the essence of morality.
Although ethics and morality are usually used interchangeably, they are dissimilar. Ethics are the right and wrong/ good and bad associated within a society, while morality is the right and wrong associated with personal beliefs. In other words, morality focuses on personal characters while ethics focuses on social system in which these morals are applied. Ethics is a branch of philosophy in which right and wrong is defined theoretically, logically and rationally while morals are subjective and personal (Mujtaba, 2005). The normative theories are the branch of philosophy that studies ethical behavior.
On his way to his death some might say he should escape since his trial is unjust. Some might argue, like Socrates, that it isn't right for him to escape and go against his word. His friend Crito is trying to argue the reasons why Socrates is in the right for escaping, while Socrates is arguing the opposite, why his morals will not allow him to do so. Socrates argues many things and makes very firm arguments. If escaping is not just then he should not do it.
In addition, he states a good man would not allow himself to be executed without a fight or attempt to save himself. Also, he is causing shame to all of his friends. Furthermore, he is bringing more shame because he has the ability to escape but does not. Lastly, everything that occurred was unjust and should not have taken place. However, Socrates is not convinces because he needs to be guided by reason.
I think that there is a fallacy of irrelevance. In the book, Socrates sets out to defend the idea that it is always in one’s best interest to be just and to act justly and he suggests that the just person as one who has a balanced soul will lead one to act justly or why mental health amounts to justice. I feel that justice includes actions in relation to others, it includes considerations of other people’s good, and includes strong motivations not to act unjustly. I believe that Socrates’ defense of justice does not include constraining reasons to think that a person with a balanced soul will refrain from acts that are commonly thought to be unjust like theft, murder, and adultery. Thus, Plato presents Socrates defending mental health rather than
He claims that is he voluntarily corrupted the youth, as Meletus said he does, then the youth would harm him back. But Socrates claims that he did not intentionally corrupt the youth and therefore he should have been informed and warned about this rather than punished, ‘you ought to have taken me privately, and warned and admonished me’. Socrates then moves on to the claims of Impiety made against him. He questions Meletus again asking him can one believe in human things but not humans and similar questions which again Meletus fails to answer, ‘Did ever a man believe in horsemanship, and not in horses? Or in flute- playing, and not in flute players?’ Socrates then begins to explain how he believes in spiritual agencies, he then questions Meletus again saying’ If I believe in divine beings, I must believe in spirits or demi-gods.
In this paper I will examine why Socrates did not attempt to appease the jury in his Apology. Socrates is put on trial for corrupting the youth and believing in gods other than the gods of the city. I believe he chose not to appease the jury for three reasons: he is a man of pride, he does not fear death and additionally finds it shameful to fear death. Socrates is a man of pride. He has passion for his beliefs and values, and would rather die than give them up.
This phrase shows that, Socrates was not forcing his views on anyone, nor did he have views to begin with. Since Socrates does not have any views of his own, how can he impose those on others? Although he annoyed the citizens, he was technically doing no harm to the people. The whole reason Socrates goes around questioning the “wise” is to become wise himself and to discover his own beliefs. A person with no beliefs of his own cannot go and impose them on others, it is simply impossible.