Law And Order In Plato's Crito Socrates

1002 Words5 Pages
Law and order is one of the characteristics of first world countries. With that said, following these laws might not always be the right or just thing to do. In Plato’s Crito Socrates had a very rigid view of following the laws and never breaking them, even though the law unjustly put him in jail. I believe having this rigid belief on the laws is wrong, and the belief should be more towards following just laws and standing up for unjust ones. On the other hand, people might argue, if some people stop obeying the law in the name of justice, others will stop following them completely. The rules and regulations of a country is what keeps it successful, and these rules sometimes bring success in the wrong ways. Many times laws are unjust morally, but are beneficial to the economy, upper class, or politicians. These groups might not think the law as unjust, but nonetheless, some laws are made to be broken. For example, the Sedition Acts signed by President James Madison were against what the United States of America stood for, and those who obliged to this law did not do the country justice by not…show more content…
In cases of unjust laws, by obeying them, the country is put in harm and not in benefit. In Gandhi’s Satyagraha it is stated “An oppressor’s efforts will be put in vain if we refuse to submit to his tyranny,” (page 38). This means to make a change in the law, it is the responsibility of citizens to stand up for the wrong of the country. This act is what giving back to the country means, not, obeying unjust laws. As mentioned before, unjust laws don't seem unjust to everyone, there are some people benefitting from it in the wrong way which is why it is unjust. By countering this with standing up for justice, we are a part of the puzzle piece that is continuously making the country
Open Document