Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Aristotle contributions
Aristotle paper philosophy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Aristotle contributions
Aristotle paper philosophy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
the Republic, Socrates argues that justice ought to be valued both for its own sake and for the sake of its consequences (358a1–3). His interlocutors Glaucon and Adeimantus have reported a number of arguments to the effect that the value of justice lies purely in the rewards and reputation that are the usual consequence of being seen to be just, and have asked Socrates to say what justice is and to show that justice is always intrinsically better than is acting contrary to justice when doing so would win you more non-moral goods. Glaucon presents these arguments as renewing Thrasymachus’ Book 1 position that justice is “another’s good” (358b–c, cf. 343c), which Thrasymachus had associated with the claim that the rulers in any constitution frame
Socrates believes that even though escaping prison would save him from an unjust death, he rather die without any faults than fighting for justice by doing something unjust. Inevitably, Socrates would prefer dying without any slander of his name because it would make him more honorable. As a rebuttal to Socrates beliefs of dying with dignity, dignity serves no just after
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. Socrates obeyed what he considered to be an unjust verdict because he believed that it was his obligation, as a citizen of Athens, to persuade or obey its Laws, no matter how dire the consequences.
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 argues in the Crito that he should not escape or disobey the law because it is unethical.
In the Republic, Plato confers with other philosophers about the true definition of justice. Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus relay their theories on justice to Plato, when he inquires as to what justice is. Cephalus believes only speaking the truth and paying one’s debts is the correct definition of justice (The Republic, Book I). However, Plato refutes this with an example of a friend who has lost his wits and would be caused harm by repayment of a debt. This leads to Polemarchus’ view on justice, doing harm to one’s enemies and helping one’s friends.
Bothered by Socrates’ logic, Thrasymachus presents a revised version of his previous argument. Thrasymachus says that injustice is stronger than justice and that it most definitely results in a happier life. The example he uses (of a powerful dictator who is made happy through injustice is a reference to his earlier example that justice is used to the advantage of the stronger). Thrasymachus has not greatly changed the principle of his argument, just using alternate examples.
As opposed to Thrasymachus' initial beliefs, Socrates stands by the states with the right to exercise their powers. Within the dialogue, Socrates explains that Thrasymacus' viewpoint on justice is wrong through the idea of the art of ruling. He believes that the art of ruling does account for the wellbeing of those being ruled (Plato, 23). Through the example of a shepherd, Socrates explains that it is in the best interest of the ruler to rule in the greatest interest of the people (Ibid). Therefore, Socrates comes to the conclusion that art and government do provide for the weak, which are the subjects in this case.
Socrates bases this view of justice on the worth of living a good life. “And is life worth living for us with that part of us corrupted by unjust actions” (47e) If we corrupt our soul with injustice, our life would not be worth living, therefore one must never commit an injustice. “When one has come to an agreement that is just with someone, one should fulfill it.”(49e) It is this agreement with the Laws that Socrates would be violating, if he were to
According to Socrates there are two types of justice, the political justice and the justice of a particular man. As we know, city is bigger than a man. Socrates believes that it is easier to find justice at the political level which means in the city, thus he tries to define a just city from scrap, and will see in which stage justice enters. Also, Socrates tries to find justice in the city before finding justice in the individuals because individuals are not at all self-sufficient. We humans have similar needs such as food, clothing and shelter and in order to accomplish these goals human beings form unions, where each and every individual specializes in a field.
According to Socrates perspective, the democracy of Athens was corrupt and even though they courts were made in such a way that everyone was judged fairly, it wasn’t such because there were no rules or principles set forth. When a person was brought to court in the Athenian court and the person spoke against the jurors or offended them, he or she could be prosecuted based on that. In summary, judgment was passed based on emotion rather than on justice. In the Apology, Socrates stated, “my present request seems a just one, for you to pay no attention to my manner of speech-
It is challenging to lead a private life while truly fighting for justice. A man can fight for justice through examining the greatest issues in human nature that Socrates found essential to the private life. However, this knowledge can have the biggest effect when brought into the public life such as through teachings. These two things can then combine to reflect how the state should be changed. Socrates sometimes crossed this line himself, even if unknowingly.
When it comes to justice, Polemarchus believes that justice is “…helping friends and harming enemies.”. Socrates questions this point of view because according to Polemarchus’ view point, only the people who are close to him and in his circle of friends would be worthy of any kind of Justice. Polemarchus is wrong in this viewpoint because if only the people that you know who are of your similar social status and you interact with on a day to day basis are considered friends, what of those that you do not know? Or what of those who are not of your social status, that you do not interact with? Socrates questions this by asking, “Do you mean by friends those who seem to be good to an individual, or those who are, even if they don't seem to be, and similar with enemies?”.
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.
This shows that Polus does not even stick by his counter-argument that doing whatever is good for oneself is what matters. Polus then switches to this idea that “it is necessary for someone who acts in this manner to pay a penalty” which even more supports Socrates claim that it's better to suffer injustice than deal with the consequences of committing injustice. (470a4). When Socrates asks Polus if it is better to commit injustice acts of power like killing, driving human beings out and confiscating possessions rather than suffering injustices. Polus does not answer.
They do not have time to enjoy their life because of they always on self-defend for things they do wrong. In Plato’s dialogue Gorgias, Socrates takes this position to an extreme. He argues that it is much better to suffer wrong than to do it; that a good man who has his eyes gouged out and is tortured to death is more fortunate than a corrupt person who has used wealth and power