More handpicked essays just for you.
History of the peloponnesian war sparknotes
Plato : republic on justice
History of the peloponnesian war sparknotes
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: History of the peloponnesian war sparknotes
Plato’s, The Crito, tells an account of Socrates’ death sentence in Athens, Greece, shortly after the Peloponnesian War. Socrates is jailed and awaiting his execution, which is a decision made by the state after a trial coupled with an unsuccessful appeal. The state makes the argument that by defying his sentence, he would be going against The Laws of Athens. This, in turn, would be acting unjustly, or in a way that would harm the people. In breaking this legally binding agreement by leaving rather than implementing his sentence, he would be going against the unspoken social contract that he had made and had consented to for the past seventy years. If he had found anything flawed with The Laws of Athens, then he could have left the city at any time previous to his conviction (Plato 52d-e). Also, when convicted, he did nothing to help his situation in that he rejected a prison sentence, exile, and condemnation. He maintained that if he were to be let free, he must be able to resume his life as it was previous to his conviction. The authority, or the right to command and …show more content…
because there is no real way to ensure innocence or complicity especially in this situation in which there would not be DNA evidence. There is no way for the system to be foolproof (Causes of Wrongful Convictions 1). Since he did not commit the crime, it would in fact be unjust for him to uphold the values presented in The Laws. He would be acting unjustifiably by aiding his enemies in illegitimately wronging him. It would be unjust to harm his enemies in a form of tit for tat, but it is also unmerited to abet them in executing unjust behavior. By remaining restrained and succumbing to this adjudication, he is feigning ignorance in regards to a situation he knows is unjust, when according to him, nothing is superior to the preservation of
"Gentlemen of the jury, be merciful. For God's sake, be merciful. He is innocent of all charges brought against him.
The Punishment Imperative, a book based on the transition from a time when punishment was thought to be necessarily harsh to a time where reform in the prion system is needed, explains the reasons why the grand social experiment of severe punishment did not work. The authors of the book, Todd R. Clear and Natasha A. Frost, strongly argue that the previous mindset of harsh punishment has been replaced due to political shifts, firsthand evidence, and spending issues within the government. Clear and Frost successfully assert their argument throughout the book using quantitative and qualitative information spanning from government policies to the reintegration of previous convicts into society.
King was well aware of the laws, and knew that his protests, even peaceful, would have resistance to it. Yet, at the same time King didn’t care that it would’ve been illegal. He clearly stated that any law that he feels is unjust, he would fight against it whether it was legal to do so or not. The same can be said of Socrates in Crito, because he knows he got there for disobeying the law. In the eyes of the law, he corrupted the youth of Athens by exposing them to questioning and examining everything around them. When he is questioned why he doesn’t want to attempt to escape his death, he states that he feels it is unjust to escape. Socrates did what he believed his job was, which was to enlighten the youth to the unjust ways of society. While the way he was punished for it was unjust, Socrates stated that he has lived a happy life, and if he can’t rightly persuade the Laws of Athens to change its mind and let him go then he can accept
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
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
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.
Socrates was a one of the first philosophers and teachers known to Western philosophy. He lived in Athens Greece from 470 – 399 B.C. and is studied to this day because of his insights and understanding of the way people should live. Towards the end of his life, Socrates was accused of a myriad of crimes including criminal meddling and the corruption of the minds of the young. Eventually, Socrates was found guilty of his crimes and shortly after he was condemned to death. During the time of his incarceration, he was visited by a friend known as Crito to discuss the matter of his death in addition to the proposal of escape from prison. Crito initially believed that it would be in Socrates best interest to escape prison and live in exile instead of facing death. Socrates, however, had a different view on escape and chose not to flee. Instead, he faced his sentence and explained his reasoning to be what he believed was right. Escaping could have been feasible for a few different reasons including instances such as his children and the people that he taught. For the type of teacher that he was, his reasons for not escaping are understandable and respectable, and he believed that escaping was wrong. Since he believed it wrong, it was good that Socrates chose not to escape. Escaping would essentially nullify his teaching of morals and honor and his reasons for living.
Socrates, in his conviction from the Athenian jury, was both innocent and guilty as charged. In Plato’s Five Dialogues, accounts of events ranging from just prior to Socrates’ entry into the courthouse up until his mouthful of hemlock, both points are represented. Socrates’ in dealing with moral law was not guilty of the crimes he was accused of by Meletus. Socrates was only guilty as charged because his peers had concluded him as such. The laws didn’t find Socrates guilty; Socrates was guilty because his jurors enforced the laws. The law couldn’t enforce itself. Socrates was accused of corrupting Athens’ youth, not believing in the gods of the city and creating his own gods. In the Euthyphro, Socrates defends himself against the blasphemous charges outside the courthouse to a priest Euthyphro. Socrates looks to the priest to tell him what exactly is pious so that he may educate himself as to why he would be perceived as impious. Found in the Apology, another of Plato’s Five Dialogues, Socrates aims to defend his principles to the five hundred and one person jury. Finally, the Crito, an account of Socrates’ final discussion with his good friend Crito, Socrates is offered an opportunity to escape the prison and his death sentence. As is known, Socrates rejected the suggestion. It is in the Euthyphro and the Apology that it can be deduced that Socrates is not guilty as charged, he had done nothing wrong and he properly defended himself. However, in the Crito, it is shown that Socrates is guilty only in the interpretation and enforcement of Athens’ laws through the court system and its jurors. Socrates’ accusations of being blasphemous are also seen as being treasonous.
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.
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...
Plato uses the Socrate (Allen, Plato. and Plato. 81), who was in the prison to fully explain the moral obligation of the citizens to obey the law. The Socrate is visited in the jail by his old friend who happens to be Crito, who made necessary arrangements to make Socrate escape from prison, because he had been found guilty of the offense and was sentenced to death. Despite the fact that Socrate was willing to await his execution, Crito uses compelling reasons to make the Socrate escape from prison because his death would pose a bad picture towards his friends as most people might have thought that they did not try to save their friends Socrate (Allen, Plato. and Plato. 87). Crito argues that, when Socrate stays and awaits the execution, he would have aided his friends in wronging him unfairly and then he would have been all his children and leaving them fatherless. On his part, Socrates answers that a person should not be concerned about public opinion and only conce...
Socrates was a man who stuck to his commitment to truth, morality and philosophy over life. He had a great commitment to his state, therefore by disobeying it, he would be committing suicide in a sense. If Socrates had disobeyed his state, he would never be allowed to enter it again, nor would any other allow him to live peacefully. His arguments throughout the whole dialogue were very strong. Socrates looked out for his state, while Crito’s arguments were based on himself and how others would view him. Socrates’ conclusion to stay in the prison may have cost him his life, but his act saved the morality and truth of Athens.
There are many explanations for what punishment characterises. For Emile Durkheim, punishment was mainly an expression of social solidarity and not a form of crime control. Here, the offender attacks the social moral order by committing a crime and therefore, has to be punished, to show that this moral order still "works". Durkheim's theory suggests that punishment must be visible to everyone, and so expresses the outrage of all members of society against the challenge to their collective values. The form of punishment changes between mechanic (torture, execution) and organic (prison) solidarity because the values of society change but the idea behind punishing, the essence, stays the same - keeping the moral order intact not decreasing crime. Foucault has a different view of the role or function of punishment. For Foucault, punishment signifies political control. His theory compares the age of torture with the age of prison, concluding that the shift from the former to the latter is done due to changes in society and new strategies needed for the dominance of it by the rulers. Punishment for Foucault is a show of power first brutal and direct (torture), then organised and rational (prison). Punishment does not get more lenient because of humanitarian reasons but because the power relations in society change.
...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.