Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on the trial of socrates
Socrates unjust trial
Socrates unjust trial
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay on the trial of socrates
Introduction
This essay will be discussing the distinction between the duty to obey the law and morals taking into consideration the trial of socrates within which this essay will be using as a vehicle to analyse the jurisprudential question as to why in a very modern constitutional democracy the citizen has a duty to obey the law.
Socrates-Law vs Morality
The trial of Socrates suggests that there are three possible bases for an ethical obligation to obey the law. First and foremost a citizen might have agreed to the law, that is, we might find that an express or implied agreement to conform exists. Secondly, short of an implied agreement, his own actions might stop him to decline, if the term were used in a legal sense the argument would in fact be redundant. Thirdly, absent any assent or action by the citizen himself, he might simply are the recipient of advantages presented by alternative citizens and so arguably ought to have associate obligation to conform the laws enacted by those citizens. Logically, these three prospects appear to exhaust the vary of sources of obligation.
Laws are the body of rules that are recognized as binding among folks of a community or state in order that they will be obligatory upon them and enforced on them by applicable sanctions are referred to as laws. Morals are beliefs and values which are shared by a society or a region of a society. These tell those who share them what's right or wrong. problems in identifying the ethical values of a society is that Some folks sometimes regard things as morally right or wrong that at over again or in another place are thought to be matters of taste or indeed to be matters of no importance at all.
Moral attitudes tend to alter overtime as an example homose...
... middle of paper ...
...icised Hart's "soft social thesis" approach in the Authority of Law. Raz argues that law is authority, distinctive purely through social sources, without regard to moral reasoning. Any categorisation of rules beyond their role as authoritative is best left to sociology, instead of jurisprudence.
Conclusion
Law is drawn from tradition and cultural attribute of community based on non-secular values or social cultural traditions. However, law changes with ever-changing social and economic circumstances and scientific advancement. Therefore law cannot be divorced from morality. However, it's meant for a bigger community. Persons having abnormal behaviour or instinct, a miniscule minority cannot challenge a law meant for the right-minded majority. However, now days to imitate a unique culture even in South Africa laws can be changed to accommodate a miniscule minority.
Socrates refuses to disobey the law. He believes in the correctness of the cities laws. He believes it is never right to act unjustly. He thinks that if you do not agree with the laws of the area that you are living at, then to leave and go somewhere else. He argues that the government could be seen as “his parents, also those who brought him up,” (Crito, 51e), since he has lived there his entire life and when you live somewhere for so long you should “persuade us or to do what we say,” (Crito, 52a) or leave. Socrates tells Crito that
In book four of Plato's “The Republic” Socrates defines justice in the individual as analogous to justice in the state. I will explain Socrates' definition of justice in the individual, and then show that Socrates cannot certify that his definition of justice is correct, without asking further questions about justice. I will argue that if we act according to this definition of justice, then we do not know when we are acting just. Since neither the meaning of justice, nor the meaning of good judgement, is contained in the definition, then one can act unjustly while obeying to the definition of justice. If one can act unjustly while obeying this definition, then Socrates' definition of justice is uncertifiable.
Barker (2014, p.1) suggests that the law may be defined as a rule of human conduct, imposed upon and enforced among the members of society in which laws are inaugurated to ensure that social order continues. As a result, laws ensure that members of society may live and work together in an orderly manner by following the same rules. However, laws have different affects on individual members in society and from this point of view, this essay will focus on how laws in society affect individuals in minority and disadvantaged groups.
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 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 uses these premises’ construction to deconstruct Thrasymachus’ argument. Thus, Thrasymachus concludes that if a subject obeys the laws issued by the rulers, even if those laws go against the rulers, the subjects would be acting justly and unjustly simply by obeying the laws of the ruler (339d). Socrates pulls the argument back to his side when he asserts, “doesn’t it turn out necessarily in exactly this way, that it’s just to do the opposite of what you say? For what’s disadvantageous to the stronger is without doubt commanded to the weaker to do?”
In his book on ?The Behavior of Law? Donald Black attempts to describe and explain the conduct of law as a social phenomenon. His theory of law does not consider the purpose, value, impact of law, neither proposes any kind of solutions, guidance or judgment; it plainly ponders on the behavior of law. The author grounds his theory purely on sociology and excludes the psychology of the individual from his assumptions on the behavior of law (Black 7). The theory of law comes to the same outcome as other theories scrutinizing the legal environment, such as deprivation theory or criminal theory; however, the former concentrates on the patterns of behavior of law, not involving the motivation of an individual as such. In this respect, Black?s theory is blind for social life, which is beyond the behavior of law.
Socrates political, moral and social obligations are linked to a theory called the Social Contract Theory. The overall intent of the social contract is meant to enhance the society we live in and promotes a sound, balanced, law abiding society. Socrates illustrates to Crito, that he must accept his punishment administered to him by Athens law. Furthermore, he exemplifies that the laws he has obeyed his entire life, allowed him to thrive within Athens (Friend). He indicates that he made a conscious decision, when he reached the age of maturity, he would reside in Athens. He was fully aware of the laws and how the Athenian government handled justice. Although, the social contract is not signed legal binding contract, Socrates feels fully obligated
I believe that we can be morally justified in disobeying laws, which we consider to be immoral and there are several reasons for this. I believe that it is only possible to happily live in accordance with our own moral code, it may also be possible to live without too much dissatisfaction within the bounds of laws, which dictate a stricter moral code than our own. However I do not believe that it is possible to happily exist under a system of law whereby we are obliged at times to break our own code of morality. In this situation we are likely to find ourselves in a constant struggle ...
by private individuals” (Crito, 50b) acting based on their whims and fancies, it shows the Laws are non-binding and lack the authority to enforce against deviant behaviours, which then calls to question the social stability of Athens. Therefore, Crito was persuaded by the Laws to give up assisting an act of injustice that will destroy the Laws and Athens. Secondly, assisting Socrates’ escape is an injustice against the Laws because Socrates will be asserting an equal status with Athens through criticising and retaliating against his prescribed punishment, when Socrates has been dependent on Athens and the Laws since birth. As a citizen, Socrates has benefitted from Athens’ Laws. The Laws have “given [him] birth, nurtured [him], educated [him].
In every society around the world, the law is affecting everyone since it shapes the behavior and sense of right and wrong for every citizen in society. Laws are meant to control a society’s behavior by outlining the accepted forms of conduct. The law is designed as a neutral aspect existent to solve society’s problems, a system specially designed to provide people with peace and order. The legal system runs more efficiently when people understand the laws they are intended to follow along with their legal rights and responsibilities.
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.
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...
A moral system is informal and can have vague and general rules, while a legal system must have specific, fairly well defined rules. Although the thought of moral ethics might bore people, especially teens and young adults, they are a pretty important thing for us as a community to know. We all have opinions, and strong beliefs on many things and topics. Just knowing and understanding the importance of moral ethics can improve the way we think and more importantly the way we act and respond.
Both law and morality serve to regulate behaviour in society. Morality is defined as a set of key values, attitudes and beliefs giving a standard in which we ‘should’ behave. Law, however, is defined as regulating behaviour which is enforced among society for everyone to abide by. It is said that both, however, are normative which means they both indicate how we should behave and therefore can both be classed as a guideline in which society acts, meaning neither is more effective or important than the other. Law and morals have clear differences in how and why they are made. Law, for example, comes from Parliament and Judges and will be made in a formal, legal institution which result in formal consequences when broken. Whereas morals are formed under the influence of family, friends, media or religion and they become personal matters of individual consciences. They result in no formal consequence but may result in a social disapproval which is shown also to occur when breaking the law.