The question of having people who live the most moral lives be involved with politics is a tricky one. Some people think that it makes perfect sense to have the most moral people in politics but on the other hand some people may not see the correlation between morality and politics. In this paper this question will be discussed by looking at the readings of Plato, Socrates, and Machiavelli. The first book that will be discussed is the Republic by Plato, then The Trial and Death of Socrates, and finally The Prince by Machiavelli. This essay will explain the way each writer feels about morality and their role in politics and compare their ideas to one another’s. In the republic Plato is observing the conversations of others and whether or …show more content…
Instead Socrates went home without regard of consequences because he felt what he was doing was morally right. Everything that Socrates says within this book point to the fact that moral people should be in politics and run the city. Socrates has defended the moral life and showed that he believes politics should be moral. “I was the only member f the presiding committee to oppose your doing something contrary to the laws, and I voted against it” (32 b). Socrates lives a moral life and believes the politics that govern the city should be moral. Socrates sees himself as a gadfly that the gods have sent to their city to teach his ways and said that they were doing the wrong thing by executing him because they will not easily find someone else like …show more content…
The way to acquire these new principalities is trough fortune or strength. Machiavelli states that a principality that you acquire which was used to being under its own rule should continue to be under its own rule. “…let them continue to live under their own laws, make them pay you, and create there an administrative and political elite who will remain loyal to you” (17). These people will still feel like they are under their own rule but they will be loyal to the prince. Machiavelli states that a principality acquired through strength is easier to hold control of than one acquired by luck or fortune. The rulers who acquire these principalities through luck remain dependent on who they received the principality from. The ruler of such a principality will not know how to control and maintain his power. The ruler will have no troops of his own that are loyal to him and are willing to
There is three ways a monarch can acquire his domain. Either he can inherit it, or he can create a new one or annexed territories. Machiavelli states that hereditary principalities are less tricky than the mixed ones since newly captured dominion tend to be more rebellious.When one becomes the prince of the favor of the people he needs to keep good terms with them,which is easy. “He who becomes a Prince through the favor of the people should
...dditionally, Socrates believed that escaping would show that the people who tried him and found him guilty that they had in fact done the right thing. This would further their assumptions that he was corrupting the minds of people by running away and disobeying the law. If he had escaped, he may have been invalidated and may not be as important historically as he is today. Whether or not it made an impact on Athens or the rest of the world, Socrates did what he believed was right for himself and for the people. I believe that Socrates did what was honorable at the time. His honor and incite in to the way that people should live has been carried on through history is proof that people still value his ideas and reasoning.
Socrates lived in a political system. In order for someone to survive in a political system, it is helpful to obey the laws of the system, or city. Did Socrates follow these laws? According to the facts, no. He was indeed put to death because he broke them. But when looking at Crito, I wonder if he even intended or noticed the laws he broke to deserve him death. In Crito, Socrates follows the laws and does not escape, as recommended. If he was such a criminal to deserve death, why didn't he escape? Socrates viewed the laws with his own reference. It is obvious that he does not see any law being broken such as corrupting the youth. If he did see this crime take place I think he would not of defended himself. Socrates was a proud man, even though he did not sho...
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.
Written almost 500 years ago, Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Prince” brings forward a new definition of virtue. Machiavelli’s definition argued against the concept brought forward by the Catholic Church. Machiavelli did not impose any thoughts of his own, rather he wrote from his experience and whatever philosophy that lead to actions which essentially produced effective outcomes in the political scene of Italy and in other countries. While Machiavelli is still criticized for his notions, the truth is that, consciously or subconsciously we are all thinking for our own benefit and going at length to achieve it. On matters of power where there is much to gain and a lot more to lose, the concept of Machiavelli’s virtue of “doing what needs to be done” applies rigorously to our modern politics and thus “The Prince” still serves as a suitable political treatise in the 21st century.
He applies this logic to mean that he must go around Athens and show others that they are not actually wise, so that they can become intelligent like him. As a result, he feels he is helping the society of Athens as a whole. By a small number, Socrates is found guilty and the jury comes to a decision to put Socrates to death. To further his display of haughty behavior Socrates’ response is to say in a mostly joking manner that the city should be giving him a medal of honor. He continues on to reject exile and prison time, suggesting that he pay a fine. Socrates’ reaction is unlike what is to be expected. He believes that it is ridiculous to fear the after-life because it does not make sense to fear things he does not know (29c). When given a chance to defend himself Socrates doesn’t cry, beg, or bring family matters into the courtroom, thinking it better to die after an honorable defense than live on against his own
So, first, why does Socrates make such a bold statement? Verily it is nothing short of his own death sentence. The people who accused and voted against Socrates, have decreed it that he is to die for impiety toward the gods and of corrupting the youth (Plato), in addition, it is known that Socrates has as a companion of sorts a "prophetic voice" to keep his philosophical endeavors regulated. Socrates himself states that this presence has not opposed him at an...
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.
This means that the opinion of the majority is not worth noting if it results in a ruined soul. Therefore, when the moral question is brought up about whether escaping is the right or wrong thing to do, Socrates thoroughly assess the outcome. He came to the conclusion that escaping will not only cause him harm, but will cause harm to his city of Athens as well, because as he sees it, by living there his entire life, in a way, meant that he signed a social contact. The idea of a social contract “, an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits,” (Oxford) further strengthens Socrates argument for anti-retaliation because he personifies Athens in a role of a caregiver. Athens is a place that nurtured Socrates and molded him into the person he is, just like a parent does with their own child. And just like any good child will do if their parent was to hit them, is not to retaliate against them in the same physical manner because of the respect and love that is there. Furthermore, Crito mentions that it was fellow Athenian wrongdoers that put him in there, therefore, if Socrates decides not to leave then he behaves unfairly to himself. However, for Socrates retaliating against unjust is an act of unjust and that is certainly the opposite of what he is trying to live by, so he stands his ground and does not leave the prison
Socrates believes that since he lived a fulfilling and content life in Athens, that he should be okay with the end result regarding the laws of city. While his choice is a bit submissive, the fact remains that Socrates is being help in prison under false convictions and thus a decision must be made by the reader as to whether or not Socrates could break out and not actually break the laws. Crito mentions that if Socrates is to make no attempt at escaping, he will leave his sons without a father. Socrates acknowledges t...
The second argument that supports Socrates decision to stay in prison is that of the repercussions to the city of Athens. If Socrates escaped, the Athens city together with its fabric, laws, would be annihilated. By the extension, destruction of the Athens’ city equally destroyed the lives of people of Athens. Socrates argues that harming others is similar to harming ones soul because such an act constituted an unjust act. Therefore, it was a wiser decision to meet death rather than escape.
First of all, there was no legitimate reason Socrates should have been brought to court and absolutely no reason he should have been found guilty. Socrates lived a humble, poor life so that he could spread his wise words throughout the land. He was not boastful and he did not preach anything that he did not believe himself. “It seems
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
To understand the politics we have, we must look at two philosophers who have shaped the ideas and politics of this world. Niccolò Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes founded a new kind of political science that opposed the classical view of politics. Both of these men believed classical philosophy and Christianity focused on reaching imagined republics; these imagines republics were unreachable. Under these imagined republics men were held to high standards, men had to be virtuous; and men could not keep all the virtues because they lived in a world where men were not all good. Machiavelli’s book The Prince redefines virtue in order to allow rulers to keep their power; he lowered the standards of politics with this action. While Machiavelli’s writings meant to influence rulers, Hobbes’ book the Leviathan focused on appealing to the people. Hobbes placed political philosophy on a scientific basis; as a result human life was reduced to only self-preservation and commodious living. This essay will examine the innovations Machiavelli and Hobbes created especially with their views on virtue, necessity, and liberty.
...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.