This paper seeks to compare and contrast Plato’s Crito and Martin Luther King Jr. letter from Birmingham Jail. Both Socrates and King make a case from similar perspective, though separated through a vast amount of years, both are unjustly arrested and charged with seemingly ridiculous sentences; awaiting trial in prison, and they are presented with a choice to flee incarceration or to stay and accept their fate. Their argument, in my option is over whether it is moral or not to disobey the law, despite the fact that it is unjust. In “The Crito” Plato documents a conversation between Crito and Socrates.
Socrates was placed in prison by the unjust laws of his accusers. Yet, after Socrates’ sentencing, he obeys the laws of staying imprisoned and is determined to not escape. Also, he does not commit bribery to the guard. In a way, the laws are both good and bad in Plato’s Crito. The laws, or in fact the accusers, unjustly put Socrates in prison and did not give him a fair trial, instead chose to execute.
Sydney Leopard Philosophy 105 3-5-2018 What is pious and impious and who, on the off chance that anybody, is to decide equity? In The Trial and Death of Socrates, Plato relates the dialog amongst Crito and Socrates in his correctional facility cell. Crito is doing what he supposes is just and intends to convince Socrates to escape execution. Socrates, however, doesn 't rush to take Crito 's offer.
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 his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King, Jr. argues that one who disobeys an unjust law must do so with a willingness to accept the consequences of breaking the law. Through civil disobedience, King aims to draw attention to ongoing injustices, and contends that one who seeks to achieve such an objective must also hold oneself to the higher moral law of justice, or the law of God, by seeking such a remedy peacefully. I argue that Socrates, in Plato’s Crito, similarly appeals to this higher notion of justice when he explains his rationale for remaining in jail. First, I demonstrate that both King and Socrates seek to awaken their respective communities through each community’s respective legal framework. Next, I show that
Plato challenges an individual to follow his conscience. Socrates is challenged with facing death or escaping and relocating to a new area where others will not know of his prior sentence. It is a decision of whether to follow your conscience and do what you consider the right thing to do or to disregard the issue and feel guilty about it for the rest of your life. In the end, Socrates feels he must see the sentence out even if it means death but he is sending a message to his family that he is not above any laws…there is a reason for laws and others must be willing to abide by those laws otherwise there could be mass chaos to follow (Plato, Crito, n.d.).
In this essay, I will present an argument that shows that Plato will convince Socrates to reconsider his decision to receive the death sentence. Plato would show Socrates that his three reasons for staying to receive his sentence is unjust because his action is fuelled by injustice. I will also show that Socrates will agree with Plato about the unjust consequences that his actions may bring after Plato reasons why Socrates is doing an injustice. Finally, Plato would then proceed to show Socrates that his decision to stay cannot result in happiness and justice which in turn will cause Socrates to re-evaluate accepting his death sentence according to his own ideals of a happy and just life.
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.
Socrate prefers to death by drinking poison than breaking the laws to save his life by escaping. Socrates dedication to follow the law is truly admirable. It 's doubtful anyone today, would follow the laws of their nation so firmly as Socrate. There’s no debate that anyone would choose to live than dying in a prison
In Plato’s The Republic” written in 380 BC, Plato introduces two characters Polemarchus and Thrasymachus who hold two separate opinions on Justice. They both are made to give their own opinions on Justice by Socrates. Both standpoints accurately represent Justice in sirtain situations. The word justice can be represented in many ways because it holds a broad meaning. They are covering two completely different aspects of Justice.
Plato’s view on death According to Plato, Socrates didn’t fear death. He stopped fearing death when God ordered him to live the life of a philosopher. “No one knows whether death may not be the greatest of all blessings for a man, yet men fear it as if they knew that it is the greatest of all evils.” He says that this is just as bad as thinking that you’re wise, when you’re actually not.
Plato regarded justice as the true principle of social life. Plato in his day found a lot of evil in society. He saw unrighteousness rampant and injustice enthroned.
Social class is evident through different housing and neighborhoods. Each of these pictures where taken in three neighborhoods with varying social statuses. The first picture is in a wealthy neighborhood. The neighborhood had a gate to enter the neighborhood. The houses in this area were extravagant.
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.
What is republic? According to Plato republic is a way through that he made principles for behavior of human life. Plato studied about nature and value of justice. Plato studied other qualities like construction of society as a entire and in the nature of an individual human being.
