Morality and Laws in The Trial and Death of Socrates

Reason can support immoral action just as well as it can moral action, and that inconsistency is demonstrated by Aristophanes in the scene where Pheidippides is beating his father and threatens to beat his mother (Aristophanes, 1320-1451). Aristophanes is showing us that the discord and immorality associated with philosophy does nothing but cause problems for the citizens. Therefore, philosophers should be considered dangerous people to a society that values stability such as

After he is wrongly convicted to death, he still accepts the terms of his punishment. Just as King says, you must accept the punishment that you receive for causing the act civil disobedience. Socrates accepts the ultimate punishment when he could have easily broken out of prison and escaped death. In order for him to prove his point that people should question their own beliefs and listen to others beliefs open mindedly in order to strengthen their moral principles, he must accept the consequence. Socrates is always questioning his own moral principles and is open to change if he finds any flaws within them.

Although this law says you can defend yourself if you are being threatened people have different views on how they are threatened. A simple cuss word or a little push should not be considered as a threat and requiring the victim to kill or shoot the other person. The reason this law is not good is because people will find the littlest thing t... ... middle of paper ... ...t like how the bad guys are armed (Sullivan). Although, I see where their side is coming from they need to consider how this law is not being used for the right reasons and people are getting away with countless crimes due to this law. In conclusion, the Stand Your Ground Law does not help out our society in any good way and is also letting more criminals off easily.

Socrates then goes on to explain that his friends would raise his children, as he would wish. Also, he would be a mockery to his followers if he were to go against his own preaching. Lastly, the guilty verdict may be wrong and unfair, but it was the wrongdoing of man and not the laws, so why should he disobey the laws? He feels a state cannot exist without laws that are followed. Because he dismantled all of Crito’s arguments, he proved that there is no reason not to follow the laws.

When he presents it to the councils, they respond with, “What is not done collectively cannot be good” (73). The city’s reliance on being the same is what causes Equality to run away after he shows his invention to the World Council of Scholars and is treated like a criminal. These laws were initially set in place to unify humanity by cutting out all emotions and differences, instead, only deteriorated it by diminishing anything that was not agreed upon by

Escaping from prison broke his consensus with his city and such an act constituted injustice. Therefore, it constituted maligning one’s soul and, therefore, it was better to die than live with an unjust soul.

Mill is discussed how society will judge even if the person is only doing harm to him or herself and wi... ... middle of paper ... ...ered enough, which is a huge objection to Mill’s argument. In conclusion, On Liberty, chapter four by J.S. Mill focuses on how each member of society should not harm others and how everyone is obligated to keep society safe maintaining a balance. In this chapter Mill reviews his ideas surrounding the “harm principle” and holding individuals accountable for their actions to others. He also argues in this chapter that society has the right to punish individuals who harm other members in society.

Crito was persuaded by the Laws to give up because Socrates’ escape may firstly, destroy the Laws and by extension Athens; secondly, be an unjust act of retaliation against a punishment his benefactor prescribed; thirdly, result in Socrates violating his social contract with the Laws; and finally, intervene with the execution of an impartially prescribed punishment. Thus, assisting Socrates’ escape commits an injustice against the Laws. Firstly, assisting Socrates’ escape is an injustice against the Laws as Socrates’ disobedience will destroy the Laws, and by extension the city (Crito, 50a). Laws are essential for a successful city because their dictates ensure social order and prevent chaos arising from anti-social behaviour. Hence, Laws

He believes in the “haphazardness of the majority,” suggesting they are not making laws in the best interest of all citizens, just themselves. As an active citizen, people should never take the easy route when fighting for their rights. It is their duty to correct the mistakes made in the past in order to bring unity and equality to their community. Plato suggest it is cowardly to allow for injustice to occur, which happens when people reject the power they posses as citizens of any society. More often than not, the majority consists of foolish leaders commanding the wise public of the community.

To him, a person’s morality is rooted in his relationship to the state and the law: “you cannot learn of any man the soul,/ the mind, and the intent until he shows/ his practice of the government and law” (ll. 175-177). As such, any person who attacks the city of Thebes, as Polyneices did, Creon would consider immoral and deserving punishment. Although each of the two brothers were responsible for the quarrel, Eteocles was ruler at the time the war started, and so Creon would have considered Polyneices’ actions as an attack against the state of Thebes. Because Creon’s sense of morality is derived entirely from the laws of the state and loyalty to those laws, he is unable to see both sides of the brother’s war an... ... middle of paper ... ...yneices was an enemy of Thebes, and indeed he was.