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.
Rousseau, however, believed, “the general will by definition is always right and always works to the community’s advantage. True freedom consists of obedience to laws that coincide with the general will.”(72) So in this aspect Rousseau almost goes to the far extreme dictatorship as the way to make a happy society which he shows in saying he, “..rejects entirely the Lockean principle that citizens possess rights independently of and against the state.”(72)
Socrates asks the questions he does during his court case because he feels that it is his calling from the gods; questioning the world around him is his focus. However, this idea of following and obeying the gods contradicts Plato’s thoughts in The Republic. To Plato, the justice system in Greece was built upon the ability to not only willingly follow the gods, but also to act in complete reflection with the gods and their unchanging
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...
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.
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...
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 Rousseau’s book “A Discourse On Inequality”, he looks into the question of where the general inequality amongst men came from. Inequality exists economically, structurally, amongst different generations, genders, races, and in almost all other areas of society. However, Rousseau considers that there are really two categories of inequality. The first is called Natural/Physical, it occurs as an affect of nature. It includes inequalities of age,, health, bodily strength, and the qualities of the mind and soul. The second may be called Moral/Political inequality, this basically occurs through the consent of men. This consists of the privileges one group may have over another, such as the rich over the poor.
The subject matter of the “Republic” is the nature of justice and its relation to human existence. Book I of the “republic” contains a critical examination of the nature and virtue of justice. Socrates engages in a dialectic with Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, and Cephalus, a method which leads to the asking and answering of questions which directs to a logical refutation and thus leading to a convincing argument of the true nature of justice. And that is the main function of Book I, to clear the ground of mistaken or inadequate accounts of justice in order to make room for the new theory. Socrates attempts to show that certain beliefs and attitudes of justice and its nature are inadequate or inconsistent, and present a way in which those views about justice are to be overcome.
In the Crito, Socrates debates with his friend and follower Crito on escaping from prison where Socrates awaits execution. Crito unsuccessfully attempts to persuade Socrates to escape from prison but the latter is adamant and opts to remain in prison and meet his fate. This paper argues that Socrates had strong convictions in his arguments. Therefore, the paper defends Socrates decision citing it as accurate and commendable even though it marked the end of his life. Firstly, the paper examines Crito’s propositions exhibiting the eminent strong points as well as the destabilizing shortcomings. The second part examines Socrates defense outlining why it was the rightful choice. The main attention will be on Socrates core argument founded on justice and doing injustice maligns one’s soul. Therefore, the paper concludes by phrasing that it is not worth to live with a tainted, distraught and ruined soul.
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.
Upon reading Plato, The Trial and Death of Socrates, Socrates strongly held views on the relationship between morality and laws become apparent to the reader. Equally, Socrates makes clear why laws should be followed and why disobedience to the law is rarely justified.
John Locke’s social contract theory applies to all types of societies in any time era. Although, Jean-Jacques Rousseau did write during the Renaissance era, his philosophy limits itself to fix the problem of an absolute monarchy and fails to resolve other types of societies. These philosophers have such profound impacts on modern day societies. For example, the United States’ general will is codified in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, meanwhile individual rights are distinguished in the Declaration of
Rousseau’s most idealist conception revolves around the statement of the enforcement of freedom. This is another perspective of analysis for the general will since it is also a normative claim instituted in a normative community. The general will is the basis of the social contract, and the social contract is an agreement by individuals resulting in the formation of an organized society. This is where the political aspect comes into paly, since laws are acts of general will and any state is a republic if it is governed by laws, then the general will in a republic is always right; however, the judgment which guides it is not always enlightened. "When the whole people decrees for the whole people, it is considering only itself; and if a relation is then formed, it is between two aspects of the entire object, without there being any division of the whole. In that case the matter about which the decree is made is, like the decreeing will, general. This act is what I call a law" (Book II, VI). We can see that the laws presented in our community are also acts of general will that all individuals must abide to in order to be part of the social
John Locke and Socrates both have two distinctive and compelling arguments about what the social contract is. While government’s today extract ideas from both theories of the social contract, it’s is hard to determine which is the just and appropriate. While there is little comparison between the two theories other than fact that there must be a relationship between the government and the people for a society to exist, there are several opposing ideas in these arguments. First, the Socrates idea of an implicit social contract versus Locke’s explicit social contract. Secondly, Socrates believes laws make the society and in contrast, Locke believes society makes the law. Finally, Socrates believes the very few educated persons or minority
When Socrates was brought to trial for the corruption of the city’s youth he knew he had done nothing wrong. He had lived his life as it should be lead, and did what he ne...