ipl-logo

Summary Of On Obligations

1061 Words5 Pages

In his 44 BC writing to his son, “On Obligations,” Cicero declares that human beings have a natural inclination toward justice due to their nature. From this, two questions may be formulated; firstly, if humans are naturally inclined toward justice, how does Cicero account for injustice? Secondly, does this injustice contradict human nature? From these initial questions, it would be fair to respond in one way by stating Cicero accounts for injustice through the creation of the polis and this injustice does indeed contradict human nature. In simpler terms, this argument is stating that Cicero believes that what is truly a just human nature, becomes corrupted, and therefore unjust, once applied to the changing roles of humanity and their lives in a polis. On the other hand, a reasonable counter argument can be made which would propose a similar answer, but with a variation of the ultimate reason. Although Cicero testifies that human injustice directly opposes human nature, he asserts that it is bound to happen when human beings bang together and centralize into …show more content…

Before any assertions can be pressed on Cicero’s behalf, it is necessary to gain perspective as to the historical context during the time of his writing. Cicero wrote “On Obligations” in 44 BC and addressed these letters to his son Marcus. Cicero was aware that these letters would be opened and read as they were delivered from Rome to his son in Athens, and as a result he wrote in such a way that would allow for the people of Rome to relate and learn his teachings. Cicero was extremely pro-republic, and wrote “On Obligations” towards the closing of the late Roman Republic period as the transition to a Roman Empire began. His letters are primarily focused on how the Roman citizens can contribute to the betterment of the Republic, and bring to a halt the unjust rising of an

Show More
Related
342 Words | 2 Pages

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

Read More
3332 Words | 14 Pages

Cicero’s speech was also used as a tool in advancing his political career, especially in terms of his future consulship, a position that requires the good will of many people in Rome. It is crucial to understand that this law was certainly going to be passed, with or without Cicero’s support. Also, it is important to note that this was Cicero’s first public speech to the people, mentioned when he says this is his first time speaking on the rostra (de imperio Cn. Pompei 1), so this served to introduce himself to the popular realm of Rome at this time. With this knowledge, Cicero’s decision to give this speech goes beyond simply wanting Pompey to be

Read More
1122 Words | 5 Pages

The justice theory states that justice is at the advantage of the stronger; however, there have been cases where even the strongest have been defeated. Take Ovid’s Apollo and Daphne for example, or from a biblical perspective, the Book of Judges, or even Elie Wiesel’s novel Night. These writings each

Read More
648 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
550 Words | 3 Pages

Injustices, tragedies, and unfortunate circumstances have plagued humankind for all of existence. Many of these problems have arisen from the society of man, and could not be found in nature. The hatred, selfishness, prejudice, and maliciousness seen in so many injustices man created unnecessarily, as well as all the suffering it causes does not need to exist. If an individual witnesses a crime or injustice occurring, it is their responsibility to defend the weak and fight for whatever is morally right, even at the cost of themselves.

Read More
1111 Words | 5 Pages

In the Crito by Plato, Socrates argues against civil disobedience, seeing it as an unjust act. Contrasting this view, Martin Luther King argues for civil disobedience against unjust laws, and seeing it as a responsibility of citizens. Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain law, commands or requests of the government. I will argue that the view of Socrates is superior to the view of Martin Luther King on the justness of civil disobedience. Using the argument against harm, I will show that even if a law is viewed as unjust, you must not repay an evil with another evil, as evident in the Crito while contrary to ideas presented by MLK.

Read More
732 Words | 3 Pages

In Book 1 of the republic, by Plato, we are introduced to two central figures in the argument of justice, Socrates and Thrasymachus. Thrasymachus claims that justice is the advantage of the stronger. Socrates then asks if his understanding, that what is beneficial to the stronger is just and must be beneficial to the weaker people, to which Thrasymachus replies that no, this is not so. He explains that justice is that which obtains the advantage of the stronger.

Read More
1090 Words | 5 Pages

Callicles states that in most cases nature and convention oppose each other, something that is shameful in nature may be okay in convention and vice sera (482e-a). Callicles states that laws are conventions made by the weak or the majority to prevent the strong from being able to take advantage of them (483b-c). This leading into natural the strong rule over the weak which is what he later calls the natural justice (483c-484a). A man that is strong will break past the conventional restraints and rule over the weak. Callicles shows that convention is made by the people while nature is the ultimate outcome or what is truly right.

Read More
1169 Words | 5 Pages

The Republic, by Plato provides us with four different definitions of justice which are given by the four characters Cephalus, Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, and Glaucon. According to Cephalus, the definition of justice includes the laws and repaying one’s creditors. Socrates doesnot agree to the idea that of repayment of creditors as always to be a good idea. The second person to define Justice was Polymarchus, the son of Cephalus. In his opinion, justice is defined as helping your friends and harming your rivals.

Read More
1512 Words | 7 Pages

It seems that the fall of the Roman Republic was not a singular event that occurred instantaneously, but rather a long process that saw the increasing use of methods outside of Republican institutions to settle conflicts between members of the aristocracy over political power. Even as the Roman government transitioned form Kingdom to Republic and then to Empire, the competition between aristocratic families remained a relative constant in across the centuries. So too has the desire to mythologize the past. The romans attributed both the fall of the Kingdom of Rome and the fall of the Roman Republic to moral rot, while a more reasonable assessment might place the blame on a dissatisfied and competitive elite class and an inefficient and unresponsive governmental system that was unwilling or unable to address their concerns. In much the same way, modern observers of the Roman Republic have tended to mythologize the fall of the Republic in the service of creating a moral narrative about the unconscionable tyranny of Cesar and the righteousness of the Senate, or whatever alternative narrative is befitting of the historical moment and audience.

Read More
727 Words | 3 Pages

The Social Contract Plato’s Crito depicts a conversation between Socrates and Crito. Socrates’ friends intend to help him escape from prison before he is executed. Their conversation touches upon subjects like justice, injustice and the appropriate response to injustice. Socrates argues that one must not answer to injustice with more injustice as that would be an injury to the laws and to the city of Athens.

Read More
1006 Words | 5 Pages

That is why Socrates believes that doing injustice is much worse than suffering it for it is more shameful and that person will be unhappy because of that shame. I think that anyone who is put in the place of Polus will reply the same, since nobody would want to feel the guilt and the shame of doing injustice. The act of committing injustice actions goes back to the root of

Read More
836 Words | 4 Pages

It is wise to start with Roman law. Roman law is the legal system of ancient Rome, and the legal developments which occurred before the 7th century AD - when the Roman and Byzantine state adopted Greek as the language of the Empire. Laws before the Roman Empire were primarily based on centuries of customs which means that laws were not written. Roman law through its development carries more than a thousand years of jurisprudence. Roman legal history is framed by two codifications, the Twelve Tables and the Corpus Juris Civilis.

Read More
832 Words | 4 Pages

Plato's Republic is centered on one simple question: is it always better to be just than unjust? This is something that Socrates addresses both in terms of political communities and the individual person. Plato argues that being just is advantageous to the individual independent of any societal benefits that the individual may incur in virtue of being just. I feel as if Plato’s argument is problematic. There are not enough compelling reasons to make this argument.

Read More
1151 Words | 5 Pages

In “Plato’s Gorgias” Socrates debates with fellow philosophers, Polus, Callicles, Chaerephon and Gorgias, of ancient Greece over rhetoric, justice, and power. During these debates, Socrates makes a claim to Polus that it is better to suffer injustices rather than to commit injustice because the positive and negative consequences that come along with committing and suffering injustices. This claim by Socrates that it is better to suffer injustice than to commit injustice is pretty easy to comprehend once all the parts are analyzed. At first, this idea seems crazy that it is actually beneficial to suffer injustice and wrong-doing.

Read More

More about Summary Of On Obligations

Related Topics

Open Document