The laws are suppose to protect the society and its people, yet when the order of the government turns corrupt, then the validity of everything is at stake. As one can see, the corrupt laws placed Socrates in prison and he chose to abide by the impartial laws in order to be consistent and loyal to the
In this essay, two prominent voices are Socrates and Martin Luther King Jr. Socrates presents the law as a universal truth. King argues in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail" that we have a moral duty to disobey unjust laws occasionally. This essay will delve into
Several philosophers have wrestled with ideas to decide under what conditions that humans are morally permitted to disobey the law. Civil disobedience is a concept that both Socrates and Martin Luther King Jr. strongly believed in, but they did not have the same viewpoints on it. Socrates dismissed any form of civil disobedience that got a person into conflict with the State, and Martin Luther King concluded that there were times when a man needed to partake in a protest that was non violent and take disobedient acts in in order to defend his freedom. Socrates believed that if a person lives in a government where he was given the chance to argue his case, he should not practice civil disobedience. Socrates thought that if a person was given
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.
Crito is supposedly a friend to Socrates but his words and actions does not speak the same intentions. He tells Socrates that if he will not leave and escape prison, that everyone would think that he didn’t care about his friend well enough to help him. Socrates is not concerned about the opinion of the majority, for it is capable of neither the greatest evil nor the greatest good. Crito then questioned Socrates on many different things and also degraded his name and manhood. Some of the concerns listed by Crito regarded Socrates’ kids, the fact that his friends may be excluded from the Community, and playing into the hands of his enemies and giving aid to the ones who are disregarding the demands of justice.
King makes it clear that there are specific circumstances that advocate towards civil disobedience. Keeping this in mind, it is essential that citizens are given the opportunity to be involved in legal matters, such as laws and defying the law in an effort to improve the state. However, in the event that civil disobedience is necessary King emphasizes that citizens must comprehend the difference between just and unjust laws, as well as partake in disobedience through civil means. On the other hand, Socrates believes no laws that are worth breaking. His reasonings support his overall idea that an unjust law or act, does not defend retaliating through unjustly means.
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
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.
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.
Is it better to follow laws that are unjust but right, or do the thing that is fair but are against the law? Socrates in Plato’s “The Crito” and Martin Luther King, Jr. in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” answer this question from conflicting perspectives. According to Plato (427-423 BCE), Socrates believed that it is his duty to obey the law of his city, Athens, on all occasions, whereas King (1963) made the argument first put forth by St. Thomas Aquinas that “an unjust law is no law at all” (p. 69). One of these reasons for the differing opinions on this subject is due to the times and places in which these two men existed and came to their views on Civil disobedience.
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
Moreover, Socrates’ claims that escaping from prison will “break the covenants and agreements” (37) between him and Athens, and argues that complying with injustice will cause moral harm to himself and to his state, Athens. In Crito, when Crito asks Socrates, that why comply with such crowning absurdity. Socrates answered, “do we ought to follow the opinion of the many and to fear them, or the opinion of the one man who has understanding?” (33). Socrates further explained that disobeying the state laws, by escaping from prison, is a compliance with injustice, rather than agreeing to an unjustified sentence.
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
COMPARISON BETWEEN TO THOMAS HOPPES AND JOHN LOCKE VIEWS ON STATE OF NATURE Introduction Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1704) were both political philosophers. They are mainly known for their master pieces on political philosophy. I.e. Hobbes' Leviathan and Locke's Two Treatise of Government. Each of them has different views and perspective of the State of Nature and Social Contract.
This is a complicated issue because every person has a different view when it comes to answering this question. Socrates believed that the law should be upheld and respected by everyone, no matter what, while other people
