Many societal ills in a given culture can be attributed to the pride that develops in leaders and the aggressive effect this nature has on the need for personal gain. In his work The Republic, Plato spends a great deal of time outlining his vision of a society in which man's arrogant and competitive nature is unable to root itself into the government of the city, thus creating a completely just and good society. Nevertheless, even Plato realized that because of the inevitable influence of man's lust for power, no society could retain a perfectly just government forever. As man's greed overcomes the integrity of the "healthy city", oppression will take root. The inherent arrogance grows until the leader becomes an embodiment of injustice, what Plato calls in The Republic a tyrant.
This was one of the earlier stages of Sparta’s democracy. He labels the king’s rule as arrogant, showing that without the credibility of The Elder... ... middle of paper ... ...lth has the ability to travel and create his own xenoi. Unlike Lycurgus, Solon gives his people the chance of mobility and happiness through right gestures and moral actions. The lawgivers of ancient Sparta and Athens both compose some similarities through rule of justice and equality but many more differences. Lycurgus carried out a strict enforcement of laws to ensure fairness and equality, but at the same time he instituted the Council of the Elders for a much more rational sense of decision making.
For instance, Crito says he has rich friends that will help Socrates leaves Athens. Socrates questions Crito about exile, because Socrates believed that banishment is defying the law. I do not agree with Socrates because he is given two choices, eviction or death. However, my personal perspective is that both men are right and wrong, Socrates should not escape because of his moral values; however, there is nothing wrong with exile. Socrates believed in many things; for example, believing in the after life, and not fixing injustice with additional injustice.
Lycurgus instituted elders, redistributed land, made currency worthless, and established common messes. Lycurgus created a strictly equal city. However, it limited Sparta as a whole to advance. On the other hand, Solon works to resolve this problem in Athens by creating fairness for people with different upbringing. Solon allotted political privilege according to wealth instead of lineage, abolished slavery, and wiped the poor’s slate of debt clean.
These rulers are incapable of properly ruling because they cannot trample on the liberty of their subjects, or they will become considered “foul oligarchs” (Porter 84) and this further generates anarchy through the lack of rules and punishments the rulers can place on the city. It is the people who elevate “one man as their champion above all others” (Porter 86) and at first it is a good society because he does not claim to be a ruler but “freed people from debt and redistributed the land to the people” (Porter 86-87). This create... ... middle of paper ... ...ll effective today, with laws to keep power from consummating in one area, on the Locke theories. It is much more realistic because Plato’s view is a society that is not acceptable by the people, especially not allowing the guardians to keep their own children, to eliminate the idea of inheriting rights, and our basic principals of society have transformed since his time from hierarchy, harmony, and mutual obligation to equality, competition, and self-interest. Hobbes is also not appropriate because his cynical attitude towards men is not appealing to society and the sovereign aspect is not suitable in a democratic nation.
In the same case, two different lawgivers from different nations were given the same mission: to help make their states better than it was. Solon, an Athenian archon who was elected to make Athens and its city states thrive and remove this nation from its disastrous state. On the other hand, there’s Lycurgus, a Spartan man, whose mission was to help make Sparta also a thriving nation based on his first hand experiences he had during his travels (mostly from Egypt and Crete). At the end of the day, these two lawgivers had a different notion of justice and they each dealt with social inequalities in their city in their own way. Before Solon was name to reform the laws of the city, Athens was in great chaos.
Since the tribes now send less representatives these new representatives were more impactful to the government since there ... ... middle of paper ... ...was how he cancelled some debts the Athenian lower classes had established. However, Solon did not cancel all debts in Athens. He also informed the lower classes of how selfish and untrustworthy the classes above them were, and to not find comfort with the people you work for. Solon’s and Cleisthenes’ reforms were very different because they both tried to resolve the Athenian government’s problems using different approaches. The approach of Solon was one that involved mainly affecting the economy of Athens, the money and changing the laws set by past tyrants.
The two great cities of Greece - Sparta and Athens, have adapted similar, yet different laws that shaped them differently. Although Lycurgus was the first lawgiver of Sparta, little is known about his history today as he is overlooked because of the other great known heroes from Sparta. Lycurgus took the first step towards law making that dealt with inequality and injustice, and brought relief among the Leconian citizens. He was seen as a natural leader, and that was one of the major reasons for the citizens to follow his laws as they were applied. Solon, from Athens, was famous for writing the Athenian laws, which also assured justice and equality among the citizens of the Salamis While both Lycurgus and Solon innovated new laws to reinforce equality and justice into the Greek cities, there lied strengths and weaknesses.
The Peloponnesian war shows how Greeks favored success over compassion through rioting, taking over lands, and fighting in general. Everything, from the way the war started to what was given up, shows that the Greeks had nothing on their minds except power and superiority. A normal conversation between Socrates and Meno also showed great support for accomplishment. Virtue, instead of overall goodness, is materialistic and greedy in the eyes of many Greeks. While the Greeks may have cherished compassion, they show to put much more importance on
He also thought, just to save Rome that he had to kill Caesar. Brutus was also gullible enough too trust Antony after what all that happened and let Antony give a speech at Caesar’s funeral. Brutus acted as if nothing has happened between the two. The only reason he died is because of his major flaw of trusting people too much. “It is this division of thought that makes both Brutus and Cassius see Caesar as dangerous, though Cassius himself suffers no inward division, since he does not see”(Knight 124).