From Thrasymachus point of view I don’t see how he could believe that it’s the right thing to commit injustice whenever given the chance. By saying that Thrasymachus is basically saying that justice is to the advantage of rulers and injustice is to the advantage to the subjects. This is something I do not agree
In response to that Martin Luther King Jr. said that “one has a moral responsibility to disobey just laws; because if we did not disobey them, then unjust acts would continue to occur, causing our country to be harmed.” According to king he believes that we should challenge unjust laws if and only if you are ready and willing to accept the punishment that follows (MLK). King states that “an unjust law is no law at all” because he believed that laws were put in place in order to benefit and aid the citizens of the state. If a law was unjust, however, it then was contradictory and should not be considered a law” (MLK). Martin Luther King Jr. stated, in his letter, “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God.
In addition to the reasons above, Socrates also argues that if he escapes from prison, it will benefit neither him nor any of his associates. As a matter of fact, he predicts that all those who would be known to have aided in his escape would be severely harassed. He says that they could end up losing their citizenship, property, or be driven into exile. On his part, if he goes to the neighboring cities like Thebes or Megara, the people there would see him as an enemy and a criminal who subverts the laws of the state (Hughes, 2011, p.137). Being a subverter of the laws, he would be further viewed as a corrupter of the young and naive part of the society.
He then presents his point that “as the situation that motivates the sale of an organ is an unjust one, the rest of the society (or its political authorities) is not entitled to justify the permission of organ sales by appealing to the benefits that the rest of the society will enjoy from the sales”(Rivera-Lopez, 2006). So, therefore author has delivered his thesis, that it is morally distressing to legalize organ sale as political agents in unjust situation has lost the moral authority to put forward either the Consequentialist or the Autonomy Argument as reasons to
The citizens of the the United States preach moral equality and the wrongdoings of their government, yet they fail to realize the horrors that occur when trapped in a cell the size of your bathroom. The article makes great points against the criminal- justice system and their cruel punishment towards prisoners, but the author has failed to persuade me because although their current state in the system might be wrong, it doesn 't take from the fact that they are convicted felons who need to do their time, even if
What if individuals accept the worse and when offered something better, they believe they don’t deserve it? George’s character is somewhat insinuating this because of his abilities he deserved to be handicapped, and if he does something out of the way he needs more punishment. I chose George because I believed that he depicted what was wrong with the society and how that we let higher ranking people tell us what we deserve. George is a smart individual, and knows that his government is wrong, yet does nothing. In some cases aren’t all individuals
The freedoms of men and women are guaranteed under law, yet somehow we tell eachother that our speech is incorrect and should be looked down upon. How can the liberties of other people be less valuable than than your own? Americans tend to simply push an opposing opinion out of their way, deeming it invaluable and useless, but when someone does that same thing to them, they are up in arms about their right to free speech. Walter Lippman uses powerful pathos and strong diction in his article The Indispensable Opposition to develop his argument that individuals must respect and listen to other’s opinions in order for society to grow as a whole. People’s emotions are always hard to decipher and angle so that their opinion is altered, or even changed.
Caesar was trying to differentiate between breaking the law for a good reason and a bad reason. In other words, if you seize power you do it for a variety of reasons, mostly in those days to expand an empire or revolt against an unjust regime. If those in power are 'good ' then you do not need to seize power, and the enforced rules are there to protect you. So, in short, only break the rules to change them.
The world we live in is filled with crime, evil, and injustice, but do people have the desire to do bad things knowing that they are bad, or do they do them thinking that they are good? In this essay, I examine Socrates argument, found in Plato’s Meno, that no one knowingly desires bad things. If Socrates were right, it would mean that it is impossible for someone to perform a bad action based on their desire for that bad thing. Instead, all bad desires result from the ignorance of the person performing the action in falsely believing that the action is good. Though Socrates presents a compelling argument, I argue that it is possible for someone to act badly, all the while knowing that what they desire is bad.
According to the author, rejecting rehabilitation was a mistake based on three reasons. First, their faith in the law to restrict state power made sense in the progressive 1960s but ultimately was a "bad bet" when the courts and legislators turned conservative. Second, the critics ' embrace of a justice model undermined the social welfare purpose of corrections, saying, in essence, that the state should not be in the business of providing services to offenders. Third, even more consequential, the justice model rejected the idea that corrections had a utilitarian purpose-that this system should be used to prevent crime. 2.)
Creon once suggests how “[a person] cannot judge unless [one] know the facts” (Sophocles 515) when he is the one being accused by Oedipus. And yet, Creon commits the same action that he advises others not to do which reveals his dishonesty and insincerity as a monarch. Moreover, Creon does not value the guidance that his subjects has to offer; instead, he values his own opinion, which consequently hinder him from knowing his own mistakes. Creon once trusted Teiresias’s advice, but once Creon becomes a monarch and hears what he does not like to know, he accuses, “But old Teiresias, among human beings the wisest suffer a disgraceful fall when, to promote themselves, they use fine words to spread around abusive insults” (Sophocles 22). Creon becomes arrogant to admit his own mistake to keep his reputation as a wise prince.
Michelle DeLude Contrast the views of Plato in Crito and Martin Luther King, Jr. in “A letter From a Birmingham Jail” on law whether one may permissibly disobey an unjust law or an unjust use of a just law. Explain both positions and evaluate, giving reason, which view you think presents the better argument. To have a political obligation is to have a moral duty to obey the laws of one’s State or Country. Political activists and Philosophers alike have struggled to evaluate the conditions under which people are morally entitled to disobey the law or an unjust use of a just law.