What this suggests is that Socrates would be supporting the wrong-doing of his adversaries in following through with their commands. But Socrates argues that laws are just and one should never do wrong. No matter how much one thinks the act was just. He explained that he could not break the law, just because he believed the reason he was being punished was unjust. He was a man that lived his whole life following the Law of the Athenians.
In “Maus,”Art Spiegelman tasks himself with sharing the most accurate retelling of his father’s life story as well as that of he and his father. To achieve a most accurate depiction of he, his father, and their emotions throughout the novel, Spiegelman uses characters Anja and Mala. Both having been married to Vladek, Art’s father, give insight to Vladek, and impart the impression that no matter how stereotypical Vladek’s traits are, the traits unique to him. As Art’s mother, Anja also serves particular purpose in developing a fuller picture of his character. Both Anja and Mala also serve as agitating conflict between the nostalgic, hopeful past and the stressful present for Vladek while drawing a parallel of similar feelings between Art and his lost brother, Richieu. The two women are entry-points for the emotions of Art, Vladek, and
Socrates and Martin Luther King Jr. were both faced with unjust laws and had to make the decision to whether to break these unjust laws or to take the punishment. Socrates and King had different opinions on how to deal with these unjust laws. Plato argues through Socrates that one must never willingly wrong someone and that if you are wronged you may not wrong someone else in return. This means that just because something in your mind is unjust you can’t combat it with an action that is also unjust. In Socrates case, he was put in prison unjustly but he cannot break out of prison because that would be unjust.
In Plato’s, The Republic, Book I, Socrates tries to prove to Thrasymachus “whether just people also live better and are happier than unjust ones” (352d). He argues that everything has a predisposed proficiency at a function, and that this functions are performed well by the peculiar virtue and badly by means of its vice (353a-353d) . The point of this paper is to present Socrates argument and evaluate it to the best of my ability. This argument can be categorized as an inductive generalization. Socrates states that the function of anything is what it alone can do or what it does best.
Since the day of the judgment between Athens and Socrates in 399 year B.C. many historians, philosophers, and students wonder to know whether Socrates was Guilty. Philosopher was accused in corrupting the youth, not believing in the recognized gods and introducing new divinities and in the rejection of civic life in democratic society. It is very difficult to answer on this question, may be even impossible. In my opinion, there are three types of people: 1.
Finally, Socrates claims that the unjust man is ignorant, weak and bad. Socrates argument is effective in the way that he does not shatter Thrasymachus’ argument without reason, he is given many examples that change his way of thinking. Thrasymachus is told to put his ‘set in stone’ ideas under different situations, and once he does, he can clearly see that he should not have been so stubborn, as soon as he does so, he can see that his arguments aren’t suited to all situations. By the end of the argument, Thrasymachus isn’t so much debating the definition of justice, as he is defining the required traits to be a ruler of
He reminds Crito “no human being should do injustice in return, whatever he suffers from others”(Crito, 49c). Socrates argues even if the jury's decision was unjust, it is never permissible for him to do injustice in return and therefore he will not try to escape. In essence, even though Socrates is offered the opportunity to
Matthew Lee Stanton Philosophy 101 Dr. C. Scott Sevier Paper 1 Critos 's Three Arguments The first of Crito 's three arguments is Crito feels he will be losing a friend and that people will think he had the money to save him but did nothing. Nothing is worse than people thinking you care more about money than friendship. (Crito,44c). Crito seems to be afraid of the majority rule since the majority can inflict the most harm. Crito does not want Socrates to think that money is the issue.
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.
Socrates started his life as an average Athen citizen. His parents worked, making an honest living. But as Socrates grew up, he began to realize that his mind questioned things and wondered how come no one else questioned the same things or at least think about the answers to the questions that were not answered. So, as his mind kept wandering, he began to acknowledge the questions that were not answered and sought for those answers. He ended up believing and teaching things to other people, whether it went against the way the Athen government or not, he still continued his work.
“May it be for the best. If it so please the gods, so be it.” (Cooper 44). Socrates states that if it pleases the gods then thats whats supposed to happen. Socrates has his morals that he grew up with and so does everyone else.
Plato's Republic sparks this questions of authority and advantage in connection with justice, or just actions. By default it seems as those holding titles of wealth, class, or even social power, have this authority and advantage over what is to be done about justice, how to act in just ways, or even more what is to be considered just. By this influence of a hierarchy, citizens then become in a way infected with the thoughts and ideas put upon them. This can correlate to the New York Times article "Wrongfully Convicted of Rape, a New Jersey Man Finds More Punishment After Prison". Authority figures because they had believed that a man was the rapist of a young women, put this man though years of sufferance.
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.
