More handpicked essays just for you.
Short notes on Socrates trial & death
Short notes on Socrates trial & death
Short notes on Socrates trial & death
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Socrates was one of the first philosophers that is seen attempting to enforce a change in his society for the better. Martin Luther King, Jr. points this out in a letter that he wrote while he was in jail for protesting his rights without a permit; in fact, King goes as far to say that Socrates is civilly disobedient. This is a contreversal statement because King was participating in a much different form of civil disobedience than Socrates, by breaking unjust laws. Often this can cause an issue of what the requirements of civil disobedience truly are. King’s way of pursuing civil disobedience seems to be the normality in which society tends to view it. He breaks the unjust laws that are put against him and uses peaceful protests as a way …show more content…
Socrates is accused of preposterous charges of corrupting the youth and being an atheist. Most Athenians at the time would have asked for mercy and showed a large amount of respect, even if the charges were false. In Socrates’ case, he stands up for himself instead of begging, and he knows that he is doing the opposite of the social norm because he states that the listeners should, “Never mind the manner, which may or may not be good, but think only of the truth of my words and give heed to that. Let the speaker speak truly and the judge decide justly”(Apology 2). 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. Furthermore he believes others should follow this as well in order to better …show more content…
Connecting King and Socrates seemes to be a difficult task when their beliefs were expressed in such different ways, but by further examination, it must be deduced that their actions were done for similar reasons. Also, the differences between their societal situations are further explanation for each individuals actions. For example, Socrates lived a fully privileged life and agreed to a social contract that Athens provided. Martin Luther King Jr. did not receive all the privileges that the society offered to others that were not African American. Therefore, if Socrates were to break the laws, it would be inappropriate and not a correct use of civil disobedience. The most important part to the definition of civil disobedience is that whatever is being done, is for the achievement of a better society. In King’s case, he was given a validated reason, being in an unfair societal contract, to break laws in order to show how unjust they are to the people who instil them. King never accepted his societal contract because he truly disagreed with it, and therefore he he broke those laws in which he believed were unjust. Socrates had an issue with the social code and not the societal contract. The social code was to treat your friends well and harm you enemies as well as to stick to their beliefs even if they were completely wrong. Since Socrates found nothing wrong with the laws of
Socrates and Dr. King rebelled against accepting social norms. Socrates taught his followers to defy tradition and question their knowledge of law, virtue, immorality, ethnicity, wisdom, logic, etc. Dr. King encouraged equality and fought to erase racial segregation.
Non-violent direct action and respectful disagreement are a form of civil disobedience. Martin Luther King, Jr. defines “civil disobedience” as a way to show others what to do when a law is unjust and unreasonable. King is most famous for his role in leading the African American Civil Rights Movement and using non-violent civil disobedience to promote his beliefs. King also firmly believed that civil disobedience was the way to defeat racial segregation against African Americans. While leading a protest march on the streets, King was arrested and sent to jail. In response to his imprisonment and an article he read while there, King wrote Letter from Birmingham Jail, explaining that an injustice affects everyone and listed his own criteria for
Both Antigone and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. engaged in civil disobedience as a means of eliciting a revolutionary societal change; however, Antigone never seemed to get past her own pride to see if she could have negotiated with Kreon. Antigone never intended to evoke change in the long term; in contrast, Martin Luther King Jr. used his moral argument to challenge the law in order to leave a long term change for future generations. Martin Luther King Jr.’s actions possessed more merit than Antigone’s actions because he attempted to negotiate. On the other hand, Antigone proceeded to break the law which ultimately led to her demise. Martin Luther King Jr. broke the law to leave a legacy behind him for not just himself, but for the masses, whereas Antigone died and caused additional suffering without a purposeful societal change.
Thoreau and Socrates start Civil Disobedience and Crito with basically the same premise. They both believe that humans are essentially moral beings. Thoreau says that people if left to their own ends will act justly, and should be treated accordingly by the law. Socrates says essentially the same thing, he says that "no one wants to commit injustice" for its own sake, many people end up doing so anyway. Socrates says that the citizens of a government have entered into an agreement to abide by its laws in exchange for protection. He also says that if one believes these laws to be unjust, one can always leave, but if one agrees to abide by the laws they have a duty to be subjected to punishment if they break these laws. Thoreau on the other hand says that it is the duty of the people not to abide by a law if they perceive it to be unjust, and if they claim to be opposed to it and nevertheless abide by it, they are a hypocrite.
In 1968, Martin Luther King Jr passed away from a sniper’s bullet. He gave us thirteen years of nonviolent protest during the civil rights movement of the 1950’s. Before I can give my opinion on the history of race relations in the United States since King’s assassination in 1968 strengthened or weakened his arguments on the necessity and value of civil disobedience? You should know the meaning of civil disobedience. The word civil has several definitions. “The one that is intended in this case is "relating to citizens and their interrelations with one another or with the state", and so civil disobedience means "disobedience to the state". Sometimes people assume that civil in this case means "observing accepted social forms; polite" which would make civil disobedience something like polite, orderly disobedience. Although this is an acceptable dictionary definition of the word civil, it is not what is intended here. This misinterpretation is one reason the essay (by Henry David Thoreau that was first published in 1849) is sometimes considered to be an argument for pacifism or for exclusively nonviolent resistance”.
...y, and also fidelity to the law. Acts of civil disobediences are aimed to defend principles of justice. In King’s case he aims to persuade the local government and the businesses to comply with desegregation laws. It was important for him to communicate fidelity to the law. You should lovingly break a law, because your reason behind protesting to to achieve what you see as a higher good. You are not directly hurting the people. King’s argument ultimately is you can break the law to make the law more just. You are attempting to break the law to show that the law is unjust, and it is an act of saying that the law can be made better than it is now. He’s gathered his facts and understanding of the law, it is 100% clear there’s a problem. For civil disobedience to be justified a real injustice must exist, or else it wouldn’t addresses a sense of justice of the majority.
On Socrates’ point of view either the disobedience to the law or to the civil disobedience can be justified. To justify it correctly you have to be able to argue and find reasons for every given rule. Not just believe in what others say.
Comparing the Civil Disobedience of Martin Luther King Jr., Henry David Thoreau, and Mohandas Gandhi. From the onset of man fighting for freedom or his beliefs, the question has always been whether one person can make a difference using words rather than wars. Philosophically, the concept of civil disobedience would appear to be an ineffective weapon against political injustice; history however has proven it to repeatedly be one of the most powerful weapons of the common man. Martin Luther King Jr. looked at the way African Americans were treated in the United States and saw an increase in inequality.
He states that if he were to escape he would not be living honorably which he describes in Plato 's “Apology” as living a unexamined life and to him he would much rather die. Socrates states, “one must not even do wrong when one is wronged, which most people regard as the natural course” (Plato, 268). Socrates even though his sentence maybe biased and not morally right still believes that he must follow what he is condemned to. Through this he implies that even if we are cheated of fairness we must still do what is honorable and not fight it. He explains that the majority of people in his case would justify it to escape because they were sentenced for something that is completely moral. I disagree with Socrates in that if I was in his place, I would gain freedom and face my enemies for they wronged
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.
Martin Luther King, Jr. defines “civil disobedience” as a way to show others what to do when a law is unjust and unreasonable. As King stated in the letter from Birmingham, “Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” When Negros were being treated unfairly, Martin Luther King, Jr. stepped in to show people how to peacefully protest and not be violent. The dictionary definition of civil disobedience is the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest (Webster Dictionary). That is what Martin Luther King, Jr. did when nothing was changing in the town after the law for public school to be non-segregated. In Antigone, Creon created an edict that states that nobody could bury Polynices’s body because he was a traitor to Thebes and his family. Under Martin Luther King’s definition of an unjust and a just law, Creon’s edict is unjust and degrades Polynices’ right to be buried because of lack of information and favoritism of one brother.
While the government the founding fathers established had a purpose of protecting the divine rights granted to man, more issues arose due to the inability of the government to fully protect all human rights. Jefferson stated in The Declaration of Independence “that all men are created equal,” (Jefferson, 2014, p. 108). However, the government did not uphold this ideal. Martin Luther King Jr., one of the leaders of the civil rights movement, encouraged Americans to practice civil disobedience to attempt to make a change in the treatment the African-American people endured under the ideals of the government. Segregation laws were considered unjust under the divine law. They encouraged the unfair treatment of American citizens based solely on the color of their skin. A portion of the American identity established by the revolution, was an intolerance to unjust laws and actions. King explains in his Letter from Birmingham Jail that “injustice anywhere is a treat to justice everywhere,” (King, 2014b, p. 141). Therefore, the citizens had a duty to disobey injustice to achieve justice. However, disobedience only applies with unjust laws. According to King, “an unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law,” (King, 2014b, p. 144). Kings considers any law that does not align with the teachings of the Lord or the natural rights that all men possess as unjust. This echoes the ideas of the Founding Fathers that the British government defied the rights of the colonists. The American identity established during the founding of the nation, seems to accept the use of disobedience of unjust laws as a method of improving the American state. Without this disobedience, American citizens would lack an effective way to establish their dissatisfaction with the state of the
Socrates, according to Plato challenged the norms of society by questioning life and having others question it as well. He was labeled of “corrupting the youth” and for not believing in the Athenians gods. “Socrates is guilty of corrupting the young, and of not acknowledging the gods the city acknowledges, but new daimonic activities instead.” (The Apology, pp 654) Although, he was cast by being “corrupt”, Socrates had many followers that saw him as a wise man. Socrates trial was made up of thirty jurors, who were later known as “The Thirty.” The “Thirty” really wanted was to silence Socrates, rather than taking his life. However, Socrates did not want to disobey the laws, he did not want to be violated of his right to freedom of speech, nor did he did he want to be undermine his moral position. (The Apology, pp. 647) He stood against injustice acts several times while he was in counsel. “I was the sort...
Some of the best sources of information about Socrates' philosophical views are the early dialogues of his student Plato, who tried to provide a faithful picture of the methods and teachings of the great master. The Apology is one of the many-recorded dialogues about Socrates. It is about how Socrates was arrested and charged with corrupting the youth, believing in no god(s) (Atheism) and for being a Sophist. He attended his trial and put up a good argument. I believe that Socrates was wrongfully accused and should not have been sentenced to death. Within the duration of this document, I will be discussing the charges laid against Socrates and how he attempted to refute the charges.
...ns. Why would he do this if he did not see the laws of Athens as just? In order to fulfill the agreement he has made with Athenian law, Socrates must accept the punishment he is given, though he feels that his being punished is Athens wronging him. It would be wrong, by his view, to escape from prison, though he would not be pursued, because he would be breaking his agreement to obey Athenian law. Since he and Crito previously agreed that one must never do wrong, he simply must stay in jail until his death. This is merely one example of the way in which Socrates uses a method of logical dialogue in order to make his point. He appears to be unmatched in his skills of deduction and consistently demonstrates his love of knowledge and truth. Socrates exemplifies all that is philosophy, both as a student and a teacher, because of his constant, active pursuit of wisdom.