The place of law and the role of society are complex issues with which philosophers have grappled with for hundreds of years. Two notable individuals who contributed to this ongoing discourse are Socrates and Jean-Jacque Rousseau. This paper will be broken up into sections to examine the views of these two men and to conclude which man has a better grasp of the material. First the views of Socrates will be commented upon, with reference to “Crito”. Afterwards, Rousseau’s arguments in his “Discourse on the Inequality of Men” will be explored. In the last section of the paper it will be established that Rousseau has a more accurate view of laws and society in general.
To being Socrates arguments will first be examined. Initially it shall be noted what Socrates believes that law is. His reasoning for why law should even exist will then be explored. To round out the examination of Socrates’ arguments his view on society as a benevolent force will be explored.
In “Crito” Socrates explains to his friend why he must face what many may have considered an unjust punishment for the sake of preserving the law of Athens. As he delves into his reasoning he exposes his views on what precisely law is. To assert his claims Socrates personifies the law and holds a conversation with it. During the course of this dialogue the law describes that it has, “given birth, nurtured you, educated you,” and so forth (54, Plato). Socrates, in regard to the law has, “ hosen us and agree to be a citizen under us… you agreed, not only in words but by you deeds to live in accordance with us,” ( 55, Plato). It is clear by this exchange and subsequent agreement that Socrates has entered into a sort of contract with the law. Both parties, Socrates and law, hav...
... middle of paper ...
...o enter into society with them they established laws of property that stated that one may not take from another by force ( 186, Rousseau). In this way the rich assured that they would not lose their possessions and manufactured titles so easily. Law existed and exist to protect the “right to property” a right that has no origin in the state of nature but is much more artificial. Rousseau finds it ridiculous to believe that any human should have the right to property over another because, “the fruits of the earth belong to everyone and the earth to no one,”( 173, Rousseau). He can feel confident in saying as much because in the state of nature all humans were essentially equal, baring natural inequality, none deserving more than another( 143, Rousseau), it is only by the establishment of these laws and artifices that one may claim superiority or the right to land.
For these two articles that we read in Crito and Apology by Plato, we could know Socrates is an enduring person with imagination, because he presents us with a mass of contradictions: Most eloquent men, yet he never wrote a word; ugliest yet most profoundly attractive; ignorant yet wise; wrongfully convicted, yet unwilling to avoid his unjust execution. Behind these conundrums is a contradiction less often explored: Socrates is at once the most Athenian, most local, citizenly, and patriotic of philosophers; and yet the most self-regarding of Athenians. Exploring that contradiction, between Socrates the loyal Athenian citizen and Socrates the philosophical critic of Athenian society, will help to position Plato's Socrates in an Athenian legal and historical context; it allows us to reunite Socrates the literary character and Athens the democratic city that tried and executed him. Moreover, those help us to understand Plato¡¦s presentation of the strange legal and ethical drama.
He says that the citizen is bound to the Laws like a child is bound to a parent, and so to go against the Laws would be like striking a parent. The Laws conclude, then, that Socrates has no reason to break the Laws now: he has had every opportunity to leave or disagree, and the Laws have made no effort to deceive him in any way. In fact, until now, Socrates has expressed great satisfaction with the Laws. There is a part of us, which is improved by healthy actions and ruined by unhealthy ones. Socrates refers to an argument with Crito in which he considers whether or not it is right for him to escape without an official discharge. If it turns out to be right, he must make an attempt to get away and if not, he must let it
At the core of their theories, both Locke and Rousseau seek to explain the origin of civil society, and from there to critique it, and similarly both theorists begin with conceptions of a state of nature: a human existence predating civil society in which the individual does not find institutions or laws to guide or control one’s behaviour. Although both theorists begin with a state of nature, they do not both begin with the same one. The Lockean state of nature is populated by individuals with fully developed capacities for reason. Further, these individuals possess perfect freedom and equality, which Locke intends as granted by God. They go about their business rationally, acquiring possessions and appropriating property, but they soon realize the vulnerability of their person and property without any codified means to ensure their security...
In his “Discourse on the Origin and the Foundations of Inequality Among Mankind,” Jean-Jacque Rousseau attributes the foundation of moral inequalities, as a separate entity from the “natural” physical inequalities, which exist between only between men in a civilised society. Rousseau argues that the need to strive for excellence is one of man’s principle features and is responsible for the ills of society. This paper will argue that Rousseau is justified in his argument that the characteristic of perfectibility, as per his own definition, is the cause of the detriments in his civilised society.
Though Socrates has been unjustly incarcerated, he refuses to escape due to his implied agreement with the Athenian legal system. This paper serves to argue that Socrates’ line of reasoning to Crito does not properly address actions committed under an unjust legal system.
In the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau he describes what he believes is the state of nature and the social contract that humans form in civilizations. This discussion mostly takes place in his book called the “Social Contract”. The first area that will be covered is what Rousseau thinks is the state of nature. This will then be followed by what he believes is the social contract that humans enter to live in normal society or civilization. The last portion will be to critic and summarize his findings.
While the writings of Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau occasionally seem at odds with one another both philosophers needs to be read as an extension of each other to completely understand what human freedom is. The fundamental difference between the two philosophers lies within the way which they determine why humans are not free creatures in modern society but once were. Rousseau draws on the genealogical as well as the societal aspects of human nature that, in its development, has stripped humankind of its intrinsic freedom. Conversely, Marx posits that humankind is doomed to subjugation in modern society due to economic factors (i.e. capitalism) that, in turn, affect human beings in a multitude of other ways that, ultimately, negates freedom. How each philosopher interprets this manifestation of servitude in civil society reveals the intrinsic problems of liberty in civil society. Marx and Rousseau come to a similar conclusion on what is to be done to undo the fetters that society has brought upon humankind but their methods differ when deciding how the shackles should be broken. To understand how these two men’s views vary and fit together it must first be established what they mean by “freedom”.
Socrates was not guilty as charged; he had done nothing wrong, as seen in the Apology. Not even a priest could tell Socrates what he had done wrong religiously, Euthyphro wasn’t even able to give Socrates a precise definition of piety. It is then questioned by Crito why Socrates would remain to face a penalty for a crime he did not commit. In the Crito, it is explained why, although innocent, Socrates must accept the penalties his peers have set upon him. It is his peers that will interpret and enforce the laws, not the law which will enforce it. Even if the enforcers don’t deserve attention and respect because they have no real knowledge to the situation, Socrates had put himself under their judgment by going to the trial. Therefore, Socrates must respect the decisions made by the masses because the decisions are made to represent the laws, which demand each citizen’s respect.
Roberto Unger’s Knowledge and Politics provides an invaluable lens for examining Plato’s discussion of law and justice in the Republic, the Apology and the Crito. In the Republic, Plato sketches the outlines of a just, ordered city-state. The Apology presents Socrates’ defense against an unjust accusation before the court of law. The Crito sees Socrates accept his unjust sentencing to death and defend the rule of law. Unger’s work helps distill from these Platonic works a coherent platform of substantive justice and a critique of a formalist theory of adjudication. Moreover, while Unger’s arguments arrive in the context of a critique of liberal political theory, Plato nevertheless offers a response to Unger’s main critique of substantive justice, the “antinomy of rules and values” (91). The idea of Socratic citizenship, gleaned from the Apology and the Crito, seeks to resolve this antinomy.
Throughout the existence of man debates over property and inequality have always existed. Man has been trying to reach the perfect state of society for as long as they have existed. John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King are three great examples of men who broke down the basics of how property and inequality are related. Each historical figure has their own distinct view on the situation. Some views are similar while others vary greatly. These philosophers and seekers of peace and equality make many great arguments as to how equality and property can impact man and society. Equality and property go hand in hand in creating an equal society. Each authors opinion has its own factors that create a mindset to support that opinion. In this paper we will discuss the writings of John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King Jr. and the factors that influenced their opinions on inequality and property.
Socrates reaches a conclusion that defies a common-sense understanding of justice. Nothing about his death sentence “seems” just, but after further consideration, we find that his escape would be as fruitless as his death, and that in some sense, Socrates owes his obedience to whatever orders Athens gives him since he has benefited from his citizenship.
The opening line of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's influential work 'The Social Contract' (1762), is 'man is born free, and he is everywhere in chains. Those who think themselves masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they'. These are not physical chains, but psychological and means that all men are constraints of the laws they are subjected to, and that they are forced into a false liberty, irrespective of class. This goes against Rousseau's theory of general will which is at the heart of his philosophy. In his Social Contract, Rousseau describes the transition from a state of of nature, where men are naturally free, to a state where they have to relinquish their naturalistic freedom. In this state, and by giving up their natural rights, individuals communise their rights to a state or body politic. Rousseau thinks by entering this social contract, where individuals unite their power and freedom, they can then gain civic freedom which enables them to remain free as the were before. In this essay, I will endeavour to provide arguments and examples to conclude if Rousseau provides a viable solution to what he calls the 'fundamental problem' posed in the essay title.
The political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx examined the role that the state played and its relationship to its citizen’s participation and access to the political economy during different struggles and tumultuous times. Rousseau was a believer of the concept of social contract with limits established by the good will and community participation of citizens while government receives its powers given to it. Karl Marx believed that power was to be taken by the people through the elimination of the upper class bourgeois’ personal property and capital. While both philosophers created a different approach to establishing the governing principles of their beliefs they do share a similar concept of eliminating ownership of capital and distributions from the government. Studying the different approaches will let us show the similarities of principles that eliminate abuse of power and concentration of wealth by few, and allow access for all. To further evaluate these similarities, we must first understand the primary principles of each of the philosophers’ concepts.
I have to side with Crito when it comes to leaving Socrates’s friends and family behind just because Socrates is too proud to break the laws. Socrates sounds like he does not want to put forth the effort to leave Athens and try to live in exile just to stay alive a little longer. While it is moral to obey laws at all costs, I feel that the moral “rules” should be disregarded when you are served unjustly by those same laws. Socrates is content with the life he has lived and has no intentions in breaking the laws now, which he has so justly followed throughout his whole life. The whole meaning in Crito, is defined quite clearly. Socrates believes in the always obeying the laws no matter the circumstance, even if that means sitting in a prison until you are to be executed unjustly.
In his Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau hypothesizes the natural state of man to understand where inequality commenced. To analyze the nature of man, Rousseau “strip[ped] that being, thus constituted, of all the supernatural gifts he could have received, and of all the artificial faculties he could have acquired only through a lengthy process,” so that all that was left was man without any knowledge or understanding of society or the precursors that led to it (Rousseau 47). In doing so, Rousseau saw that man was not cunning and devious as he is in society today, but rather an “animal less strong than some, less agile than others, but all in all, the most advantageously organized of all” (47). Rousseau finds that man leads a simple life in the sense that “the only goods he knows in the un...