Furthermore, Socrates would never rationalize breaking the law because it would be violating an agreement made between the citizen and the state. The state is responsible for taking care of its citizen, whether it is in the form of education, health or protection and in return the citizen should follow the laws set by the state. Socrates mentioned that “it is impious to bring violence to bear against your mother or father; it is much more so to use it against your country”(Plato 54). In addition, Socrates believes that even though an injustice has been done one cannot amend the wrongdoing with injustice. “That neither to do wrong nor to return a wrong is ever correct, nor is doing harm in return for harm done”(Plato
In his passage of Crito, Plato examines the thought of honor in following through one’s own promise. Socrates cannot leave or escape because it would not acceptable. His whole life, he had the choice of leaving this city. However, he welcomed the knowing of what the laws stood for to take advantage of the city had to offer. Again, Plato is addressing the idea that a person's inner virtues are worth more than the circumstances that attempt to govern him.
Socrates uses reasoning and logic throughout his trial. I believe that Socrates is innocent because he defends himself truthfully with effect. He uses sound arguments and he is passionate about philosophy. Socrates did nothing to gain in life and did not want a high social standing. Socrates is fair and uses correct methods of arguments by uncovering the
(Modus Ponens) Socrates is like Jesus: both of them did not believe in gods of that time and both were just speaking to society, but in those speeches were hidden the great idea. Like Jesus, Socrates chose to die for his idea, not surrender norms of the society. Both men had their students, who recorded their words during their life or after death. (Analogy) Rejection of civic life in democratic
However, Socrates gives the example of if there is ever an iron or bronze guardian the city will be in ruins. Socrates wants the people of the Republic to believe this story, but he just doesn’t know how to persuade them. (Plato
Plato was looking at justice starting from the individual and then, to make things clearer, in the state. He seems to invert the usual relationship: rather than seeing our ideas as arising out of social discourse, he treats the state as an illustration of the mind. In The Republic, Plato’s conventional definition: “to pay everyone what is owed to him” is promptly deconstructed by “Socrates”, who points out that according to this, one should harm one’s enemies and help one’s friends, but “it can never be just to harm anyone. (Plato, 1974) Socrates insists that one cannot base justice on self-interest or convention. Glaucon instinctively feels that justice must be one of those qualities which are loved both for their beneficial consequences and for their own sake.
This will display he will avoid the penalty of the law to his convenience when he had followed it for his entire time in Athens, which will further many people’s belief of his bad character. However, the Athenian justice system was flawed. It is not right for Socrates to accept his death as his punishment when many people did not comply with the requirements of the jury to uphold the law because they decided to convict an innocent man to his death with no strong evidence needed. The laws are established with the sole purpose to establish justice. Instead of establishing justice, many people in the trial let their personal judgments of Socrates establish him as the criminal when he was innocent.
It is supported in the case of the interview. Creon declares that he cannot speak more than what he knows (751). It is an act that does not only signify him as an honest man but also indicates that he would not want to misguide the king since he was loyal. He identifies himself as a person who does not dwell on speculation or conjectures. Also, his loyalty to Oedipus is evident when it is realized that it is him who had killed the king.
Who would reject the proposal to get rid of jail? Furthermore, assuming that one is assured of being innocent of the crime claimed against him, why would he is bound to obey the terrible result of unjust judgment taken by the corrupted “the gentlemen of the jury” (26d)? If a person accepts such an unlawful decision of conviction, one may give up surviving, becomes exhausted from living in the world or comply the capital punishment depend on his reason. Socrates can be considered as a reasonable man since he accepted his death penalty based on his reasonable arguments. He may not be willing to reject his own ideas and beliefs, or may have just thought that the time to leave the world had come.
Morality is not a concern for Oscar Wilde and his characters. The lives of the characters throughout the novel are dictated by their authenticity. Whenever a character gives themselves over to artifice, they are rebuked for it soon after, regardless of how “good” or “bad” their actions may be. Wilde uses this novel as a cautionary tale for what can happen to a person when they abandon their own beliefs and natural impulses in favor of other’s opinions and affectation. Basil Hallward lives what most would consider a moral life, but his actions to influence others ultimately lead to his downfall.