Pros And Cons Of Breaking The Law

Socrates was born in fairly turbulent times. Athens had been form in the wake of the Persian invasion and was in the process of becoming an empire of itself. When the Athenians executed their remaining leadership for failing to retrieve the bodies of their comrades in a using a trial against Athenian law. two mistakes were committed. First, was weakening of their military, which they would pay for later, and the second was the disregard of their own laws. Imagine the impression this would make to an individual like Socrates. I believe the root of his

In Apology, Socrates faces possible execution as he stands trial in front of his fellow Athenian men. This jury of men must decide whether Socrates has acted impiously against the gods and if he has corrupted the youth of Athens. Socrates claims in his defense that he wants to live a private life, away from public affairs and teachings in Athens. He instead wants to focus on self-examination and learning truths from those in Athens through inquiry. Socrates argues that "a [man] who really fights for justice must lead a private, not a public, life if [he] is to survive for even a short time" (32a). He claims that this is how he has been able to live a long life in Athens and that he never meant any harm to the state. Socrates believes that for

In this paper I will argue that Socrates’s argument at 50a-b of the Crito would be not harming his fellow citizens by breaking the laws. Based on the readings from Plato’s The Five Dialogues, I will go over the reasoning of Socrates’ view on the good life. I will then discuss the three arguments Crito has for Socrates regarding his evasion of the death sentence including the selfish, the practicality, and the moral arguments. I will deliberate an objection to the argument and reply to the objections made in the paper and conclude with final thoughts.

Socrates was a true believer that true pleasure only comes when individuals live a moral life. He believed that an individual’s inner life, or the soul, is the most important part of life. Each person must keep his or her soul healthy, by seeking truth, self-knowledge, justice, and goodness. Socrates believed that any soul in search of fame, wealth, and power becomes ignorant, sickly, and weak (Claudia, 270). He was concerned with strengthening his inner self by examining and criticizing it. He was not concerned with finding what people would seek since this could only lead to a weak, sick, and ignorant soul. Therefore, Socrates remained committed to his guns and never told the court what it wanted to hear.

Political activists and philosophers alike have a challenging task of determining the conditions under which citizens are morally entitled to go against the law. Socrates and Martin Luther King, Jr. had different opinions on the obligation of the citizens in a society to obey the law. Although they were willing to accept the legal punishment, King believed that there are clear and definable circumstances where it would be appropriate, and sometimes mandatory, to purposely disobey unjust laws. Socrates did not.

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.

In The Crito, Socrates argues that he should not escape prison because it would be morally incorrect. He says that the really important thing is not to live but to live well. Therefore, by escaping prison, not only will he suffer the consequences but also his family, his friends, and the city of Athens.

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.

In this essay, I will present an argument that shows that Plato will convince Socrates to reconsider his decision to receive the death sentence. Plato would show Socrates that his three reasons for staying to receive his sentence is unjust because his action is fuelled by injustice. I will also show that Socrates will agree with Plato about the unjust consequences that his actions may bring after Plato reasons why Socrates is doing an injustice. Finally, Plato would then proceed to show Socrates that his decision to stay cannot result in happiness and justice which in turn will cause Socrates to re-evaluate accepting his death sentence according to his own ideals of a happy and just life.

major principle that comes out of Thoreau’s text that Socrates would agree with is that in the

“May it be for the best. If it so please the gods, so be it.” (Cooper 44). Socrates states that if it pleases the gods then thats whats supposed to happen. Socrates has his morals that he grew up with and so does everyone else. 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.

The dialogue of the Crito, by Plato, recounts the last days of Socrates ' life. In the dialogue Socrates ' old friend, Crito, proposes that Socrates escape from Athenian prison. Crito is a wealthy man from outside of town, a student of Socrates, and an old friend. Crito has an escape plan in place to break out Socrates. Socrates decides that if he were to escape it would not be morally justified. Socrates discusses why he has a duty to stay and face his charges, as well as why the action of fleeing would be unethical. To Socrates, breaking one law would be an injustice to all laws and would cause great harm to the

In Book 1 of the republic, by Plato, we are introduced to two central figures in the argument of justice, Socrates and Thrasymachus.

Why does humankind try to put a tag on something or someone good, beautiful, just or unjust? People have not found an answer for the question yet. Moreover looking for certain definition can be regarded as useless since human feelings are variable. However, Socrates was willing to define justice, beauty, piety etc. so that people or citizens are able to know how to live beautifully, well, justly according to their definitions. Therefore, his purpose is to have information about self of each creature. To achieve the aim, Socrates firstly tried to destroy or to decay incorrect views that are believed to be correct. For instance, he does not think that the crowd can detect what is well, just etc. Only those ones who base their ideas upon reason and rationale can determine what is well, just, etc. as Socrates states: “… I am the kind of man who listens to nothing within me but the argument that on reflection seems best to me.”(46b). Namely one should not give an importance to the view of the crowd. The view of the majority of people is not trustworthy to improve or push forward humankind. As an illustration, in the Turkey especially eastern region, when a woman escape from home and with a man, father or brothers has the authority or claim to execute the woman to protect his honor. This is a tradition. On the other hand, thanks to human beings intellectuals who

Socrates in his dialogue was pushing further with the idea that it is worse to do injustice than to suffer injustice, a clime which was objected by Polus. For Polus says that many people who do injustice are happy, but Socrates insists otherwise. Socrates focuses on Eudaimonia, which means happiness, as the main objective to reach. Thus the people who do injustice like kings and tyrants are unhappy. Socrates then asks Polus which is more shameful doing injustice or suffering it, and Polus replies that doing injustice is more shameful. That is why Socrates believes that doing injustice is much worse than suffering it for it is more shameful and that person will be unhappy because of that shame. I think that anyone who is put in the place of Polus will reply the same, since nobody would want to feel the guilt and the shame of doing injustice. The act of committing injustice actions goes back to the root of