Pros And Cons Of Breaking The Law

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 conclusion, it is shown that the ethics of Socrates and Plato can be understood by examining the works of the Crito, Meno and Phaedo. Plato 's philosophical concept in these three dialogues is mostly about denying what the self wants, either normal things like food and earthly desires or trying to gain knowledge, and instead, choosing what is just and right. This is Plato’s concept of a good life. From this quest for knowledge, virtue is obtained, and this is the main goal of philosophy in Socrates ' mind. Laws must be made in accordance with wisdom by those who practice philosophy, and must seek to benefit the city as a whole.

The first concept that I noticed shared by Russell and Socrates was the concept that one had to remove themselves before serious philosophical contemplation could take place. In Russell 's case, he refers to the "Self" and the "Not-Self". With Socrates, as seen in the Apology, confronting his accuser about the corruption of youth, his accuser is silent because he had not given the matter any thought. Socrates awareness of his own ignorance frees him from what Russell would refer to as "Self". I mention this because it serves as a common theme even as both philosophers differ in their messages.

By breaking the law his soul would be ruined and a ruined soul is not worth living with. This goes back to when he said that the really important thing is not to live but to live well. Also, when he dies he would enter Hades as an outlaw and will not be well welcomed. Therefore, he believes that he should stay and face his execution because it is better to die than to live with a ruined soul. Socrates uses all of these points to support his main argument which is that escaping jail would be morally incorrect.

He, accepting the inductive dialectic way, copes with each certain situation and attempts to put into practice it to his collective concept. In this concept, he believes that an individual should live beautifully, well and justly and he put forth a claim that “one should never do wrong” so that he can live beautifully, well and justly (49b). What wrong means is doing people harm (49c). Why do humankind make mistake or do wrong? In accordance with Socrates’ view, one makes mistakes either willingly nor unwillingly.

Karim Fleifel Philosophy 210 First Paper To Do or To Suffer? In Gorgias, Socrates was having a conversation with Polus and through this dialogue Socrates reached to establishing a hierarchy of wrongs. Socrates classified that doing injustice is much worse than suffering injustice. Another idea Socrates states is that doing wrong act and escaping punishment is much worse than being punished on that act since punishment can remove the evil from a person’s soul. I am going to discuss these ideas as I think that doing injustice is not as bad as suffering injustice.

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.

He held that upright life is the only life worth living. To him, justice was a matter of knowledge and hence, a truth aspect. Meanwhile, he honored and acknowledged his duty to obey the Laws of the state. From Socrates' perspective, Laws are absolute.

Socrates states that if one does not agree with the contract that you tacitly agreed to that one must either try and persuade the state to change or follow the rules that they have. Socrates tried to sway the court on his ruling and failed, he now feels obligated to follow through with the ruling and accept the punishment that he was given. He also realizes that if he did not like the rules and regulations of Athens that he had the choice to leave and reside in another city. Socrates knows that since he has lived in Athens for many years and benefited from the goods and services of Athens he feels obligated to give Athens his

In both readings of Plato’s “The Apology” and Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” one major principle that comes out of Thoreau’s text that Socrates would agree with is that in the face of laws by the state one should only abide if it is moral. Additionally, Thoreau believes that justice is superior to the laws enacted by the government, and the individual has the right to judge whether a given law reflects or flouts justice. Thoreau and Socrates believe that humans are moral beings and that virtue is very important. In contrast, however, even though both individuals have a lot of similarities there were some areas where Socrates’ views differed with Thoreau.

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

He uses the example of ruling a city, where a government would change the rules and laws to best suit them, and as the rules are followed by those who act justly, the just would be acting in the favour of the stronger. Socrates objects to this and claims that humans will make mistake, as that is part of being human, and may

States have laws to maintain peace and safety among people and provide ways to resolve issues that arise among individuals. As a citizen of a state you are expected to obey all laws. An environment without laws will cause the typical exercises of life to be affected by the chaos. In Plato’s book, Crito, Socrates believes you should always obey the law. You are obligated to obey unjust laws because you tacitly agree to obey the laws, people have different opinions what is just or unjust, and there are many consequences when disobeying a law.

magine a world without laws, Imagine people being able to commit crimes without anything being done, Imagine how all this important information about laws and why we have them would be nothing in the world today. Crimes are committed on a daily basis, but the law does everything to help those people who are in danger of committing those crimes by stopping them before it’s too late. sometimes the crimes are committed before the law can get to them so enforcement takes the job of taking their freedom away for them. Law Enforcement is important because without it everyone would be afraid of life. Everyone needs it for as long as Humanity exists because as humans people create mistakes that can severely harm and hurt others.

Law is present in our daily life and in everything we do. We cannot think a second without law. Whatever we can see around us everything is connected with the law. Sometimes we can see it and sometimes we cannot see but feel it. Law is not just a thing to obey for yourself but making a peaceful society.