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
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. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.” King also says an unjust law is one that is forced upon a minority by a
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.
Then he chooses to adopt the concept of unjust situation to talk about, which he explained is unjust for seller,if it involves severe suffering and deprivation,which however, is avoidable and where political agents are involved but they fail to take measures. 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
Gopnik implies that the general populace is hypocritical to the fact that prison is a cruelty in itself. 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. Although some may argue that law is imperfect and there are instances in which the law is incomplete or otherwise non-ideal and therefore must be broken in some fashion at some point.
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.