Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Law and its impact on society
Law and its impact on society
The apology explained essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Law and its impact on society
In the book of Apology, Socrates was mistakenly accused, and the accusation went as follows: "Socrates is an evil-doer who corrupts the youth, and who does not believe in the gods whom the city believes in, but in other new divinities"(Plato 9). During the trial, he denied all the accusations. He denied the would-be corruption of the youth and disclaimed his alleged disbelief in the gods of the Athenian state. However, he was still put in prison unjustly because the elaw had been incorrectly applied. Crito was a book after Apology. It was a dialogue from the main characters Socrates and his friend Crito. The main theme of the book of Crito is about whether Socrates should break the law and escape from execution, or stay and accept his death …show more content…
From all three arguments in the book, the most fundamental principle of Socrates is that the really important thing is not just to live, but to live well. Living a good life meant living a life without doing wrong, and not hurting his country and its citizens.. Socrates stated that the laws and the city could be destroyed if he escaped. The laws would lose their force, and a country without laws would be chaos. In addition to harming the city, Socrates thought he would harm the condition of his soul by escaping. His soul would be harmed if he harmed others by breaking the laws. Being responsible for harm to others would cause harm to his soul. Also, he did make a tacit agreement to follow the laws of Athens since he had lived under them for over seventy years, raised his children under them, and did not try to persuade the city to change them(Plato 54). According to Socrates, living justly also meant not breaking or disobeying the laws. To Socrates, nothing could be worse than breaking the laws and escape. Escaping from jail was a wrong action no matter what good reason he had, especially if this might bring harm to his country. Socrates declared, “One should never do wrong in return, nor mistreat any man, no matter how one has been mistreated” (Plato 49b). Socrates stated a truth, law breaking is unjust, while observance of laws is just, because laws are just. However, are all laws just? Should we obey all laws regarding the law itself is morally justice or
Plato's The Apology is an account of the speech. Socrates makes at the trial in which he is charged with not recognizing the gods recognized by the state, inventing new gods, and corrupting the youth of Athens. For the most part, Socrates speaks in a very plain, conversational manner. He explains that he has no experience with the law courts and that he will instead speak in the manner to which he is accustomed with honesty and directness. Socrates then proceeds to interrogate Meletus, the man primarily responsible for bringing Socrates before the jury. He strongly attacks Meletus for wasting the court¡¦s time on such absurd charges. He then argues that if he corrupted the young he did so unknowingly since Socrates believes that one never deliberately acts wrongly. If Socrates neither did not corrupt the young nor did so unknowingly, then in both cases he should not be brought to trial. The other charge is the charge of impiety. This is when Socrates finds an inconsistency in Meletus¡¦ belief that Socrates is impious. If he didn¡¦t believe in any gods then it would be inconsistent to say that he believed in spiritual things, as gods are a form of a spiritual thing. He continues to argue against the charges, often asking and answering his own questions as if he were speaking in a conversation with one of his friends. He says that once a man has found his passion in life it would be wrong of him to take into account the risk of life or death that such a passion might involve.
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
When the Laws are introduced in Crito they claim that none of the Laws should be disobeyed because to break one is to break them all. Instead of breaking the Laws in retaliation because they have acted or behaved unjustly, as stated at 51b, they can be persuaded to change, “although he agreed to obey us, he neither obeys nor persuades us if we do something ignobly, although we put forward an alternative to him and do not order him crudely to do whatever we bid, but permit either of two things—either to persuade us or to do it” (52a). Persuasion is the one option that allows for disobedience; however, whether or not Socrates must obey the law if he fails to persuade it is unclear. Socrates’ hypothetical disobedience in Apology to the court’s order to cease philosophizing is taken into account in Richard Kraut’s “Plato’s Apology and Crito: Two Recent Studies”. The article is a review of Gerasimo Santas’ Socrates and A.D. Woozley’s Law and Obedience: The Arguments of Plato’s Crito. In the article Kraut comments that Santas’ stance, which is that Socrates’ disobedience in the Apology does no harm to the city because he is willing to accept his punishment, is unreasonable: “but it is absurd to say that, whenever someone openly violates a law and accepts one’s punishment, no harm is done to the city” . Kraut does not go on to fully explain why no harm is done to the city, but I am compelled to disagree with him on Santas’ behalf. If harm were done to the city each time someone disobeys a court order or breaks a law, the state of Athens would have fallen apart long before Socrates’ trial because apparently punishing those responsible does nothing to repair the Laws. If this is the case, then what purpose does justice, in this case a court of law, serve if not to repair the damage done by criminals. If Socrates could not persuade the Laws of Athens not
There are many instances in Plato's the Crito where Socrates gives reasons for himself to stay in Athens and face his death. Arguments range from that of him being too old to run, to the common response two wrongs don't make a right. The reason I intend to argue against is one Socrates expresses in regards to his obligations to the city he has lived in all his life, and thus the rules that he has subsequently followed throughout that time. In Athens just like any other city, one follows the rules that the respective city has laid down because he/she believes in those laws, or does not and keeps silent. In the stand Socrates takes, he argues that since he has lived in Athens all his life, he is required to stand his ground and take what's thrown his way, even if that punishment is death, "do you think you have the right to retaliation against your country and its laws?" (Crito, 53) Socrates was a master of words. It is easy to say that his intellect allowed him to make anyone see all sides of an argument. Even Crito at times is confused about his decision to free his friend, think that he is making the right decision, "or do you think it possible for a city not to be destroyed if the verdicts of its courts have no force but are nullified and set at naught by private individuals."(Crito, 52) Socrates’ words are very convincing, but what he is not thinking about is the fact that this whole predicament was not meant to be. Socrates was supposed to be in all ...
Socrates’ view on morality is that anyone can do wrong. It is said that injuring someone in return for injury to oneself is wrong. He follows this with the connection between morality and the city. You do badly without the cities authorization; you are doing wrong towards the city and the laws. He felt if you are behaving against peoples mind and in this way, behaving against the city. It is a way of destroying the cities laws and so you are hurting citizens by doing so. An example of this is the general understanding that you shouldn’t hurt your father. If you do so than you are disrespecting laws within your city. Of course you will get convicted for this, and it doesn’t change the idea that you acted against the city.
Truth be told there is no real justice in Socrates? ?just city?. Servitude of those within his city is crucial to its function. His citizens are, in every aspect, slaves to the functionality of a city that is not truly their own. True justice can not be achieved through slavery and servitude, that which appears to be justice (and all for the sake of appearances) is all that is achieved. Within Socrates? city there is no room for identity, individuality, equality, or freedom, which are the foundations justice was built upon. These foundations are upheld within a proper democracy. In fact, the closest one can experience justice, on a political level, is through democracy.
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
When Socrates posited the idea that the laws and citizens work together synergistically, was this not broken when Socrates was unjustly convicted of a crime? The logic of Socrates would hold that one should act in accordance with just laws, but when the legal system becomes unjust, one is not required to follow the laws. The only alternative to abiding the law is to expatriate or persuade the government, so one would think that Socrates would find the code of law not worth adhering to after it was proven unjust through his trial especially after dismissing the wisdom of public opinion. The tacit agreement of the citizen to the system of laws is also a point to be disputed. An individual’s inhabitance of an area does not suppose that he has extensive legal knowledge of his place of residence. For a legal code to be truly just, the citizens must be aware of all possible infractions and physically indicate their subscription to them. If a citizen were unknowingly to commit a crime, how could he be justly held accountable? Socrates should not be held accountable for his crime unless he consciously agreed to the laws and understood his action was illegal before it was
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.
Socrates concern that breaking the law would make law ineffectual is a valid one, but Crito would argue a more global perspective on Socrates' escaping: what are the net effects of Socrates accepting his death sentence? It would be a misfortune for all his friends, any people that benefit from his teaching, and he would be leaving his sons prematurely (Crito, 44c). Though Crito doesn't develop this point further, it could be easily extended: no one “be...
Socrates and the Apology 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.
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...
Socrates questions Thrasymachus on why he adds the detail of the stronger to his definition of justice. Socrates than asks, if it is just for everyone to follow the laws that the ruler has made, if the ruler has made unjust laws. His argument is that people, even rulers make mistakes. This meaning that if a ruler makes mistakes on the law does that still make it just. It is a very conflicting argument to think about, if the rules are not just then why should they be followed but the rules were also put in place by someone who is supposed to know the difference between just and unjust and choose correctly. This relates to what Socrates says during his trial portrayed in the Apology. Socrates claims
...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.
Socrates felt that, above all, one should be a good citizen and always do the right thing (Plato 18). However, many in his time did not worry about doing what was correct. Socrates realized this, and understood that they did not care to look into their actions and beliefs. Their first thoughts were on the goals that they had, such as money and pleasure, rather than the thought of whether or not the goals they held were actually what should have been considered important and right (Plato 26). Socrates knew that, unless they took the time to question their lifestyles, they would never do the right thing. By living a life that was being examined, the citizens would be living a life that was, for the most part, also right. Socrates believed that a life that was not right was not worth living, which is why he also felt as though an unexamined life would also be not worth living.