Morality, Justice, and Ethics in Plato’s Crito
Question Three
In Plato’s Crito, Socrates is adamant that staying in Athens and accepting his death sentence is the right thing to do. When imagining what I would do if I were in Socrates’ position now, I would like to say that I would do the same thing. I think most people would like to say that they would do the same thing, that they would stand by their beliefs and be willing to die for something they believe in. I honestly believe that I would be willing to die for the right cause. However, in this case, Socrates was of the belief that he was wrongly accused and that he did not commit the crimes of corrupting Athenian youth and not believing in the Greek deities. Regardless of the fact that …show more content…
There is a significant difference between respecting the law as an important function of society and blindly following it without any conscious thought. It is of the utmost importance to consider rules and laws through a critical perspective. Throughout various societies and across different time periods, there have been a lot of laws that were unjust and disproportionately targeted one population in order to punish them, disenfranchise them, and disempower them. An issue prominent in American history, and one that is still a very important issue, is voter identification laws. In states across the country, a driver’s license, state-issued identification card, a military identification card, or a United States passport are required to vote at polling locations. First of all, these laws make it unnecessarily difficult for people to vote, even those who have the necessary identification. This makes it so that people who are less educated or who have less access to information are less likely to go vote, which also includes people living below the poverty line. Secondly, this law discriminates against people who are not American citizens. Regardless if those people and their families have lived in the United States for generations and will be directly impacted by the results of elections, they are still restricted from …show more content…
In the case of Socrates, if he truly wanted to do what was just, it would make the most sense to disregard the unjust laws. An example of fighting against unjust laws would be engaging in civil disobedience. Figures such as Mahatma Gandhi and Badshah Khan dedicated their lives to fighting against oppression and injustices in a nonviolent manner. Both Gandhi and Khan were willing to be imprisoned and even die for causes that they so strongly believed in. Aristotle once said that being a good man, or human, is not necessarily the same thing as being a good citizen (Burnet 29). Socrates placed a lot of importance on being a good human. In fact, that is what he was counting on for his time in the afterlife; that those who were to decide his fate would look kindly upon him and what he did in life. However, if his death was a function of an unjust law and if he could have done something to right the wrongs of that injustice, but he did not, what does that say about Socrates’ own morality and internal ethical system? There are times in life in which laws are unjust and it is the moral obligation of people to step in to make a change. If following a law violates a moral and ethical law, then breaking it is a necessity. Morality and legality are not synonymous, nor does one necessitate the
Question Three
In Plato’s Crito, Socrates is adamant that staying in Athens and accepting his death sentence is the right thing to do. When imagining what I would do if I were in Socrates’ position now, I would like to say that I would do the same thing. I think most people would like to say that they would do the same thing, that they would stand by their beliefs and be willing to die for something they believe in. I honestly believe that I would be willing to die for the right cause. However, in this case, Socrates was of the belief that he was wrongly accused and that he did not commit the crimes of corrupting Athenian youth and not believing in the Greek deities. Regardless of the fact that …show more content…
There is a significant difference between respecting the law as an important function of society and blindly following it without any conscious thought. It is of the utmost importance to consider rules and laws through a critical perspective. Throughout various societies and across different time periods, there have been a lot of laws that were unjust and disproportionately targeted one population in order to punish them, disenfranchise them, and disempower them. An issue prominent in American history, and one that is still a very important issue, is voter identification laws. In states across the country, a driver’s license, state-issued identification card, a military identification card, or a United States passport are required to vote at polling locations. First of all, these laws make it unnecessarily difficult for people to vote, even those who have the necessary identification. This makes it so that people who are less educated or who have less access to information are less likely to go vote, which also includes people living below the poverty line. Secondly, this law discriminates against people who are not American citizens. Regardless if those people and their families have lived in the United States for generations and will be directly impacted by the results of elections, they are still restricted from …show more content…
In the case of Socrates, if he truly wanted to do what was just, it would make the most sense to disregard the unjust laws. An example of fighting against unjust laws would be engaging in civil disobedience. Figures such as Mahatma Gandhi and Badshah Khan dedicated their lives to fighting against oppression and injustices in a nonviolent manner. Both Gandhi and Khan were willing to be imprisoned and even die for causes that they so strongly believed in. Aristotle once said that being a good man, or human, is not necessarily the same thing as being a good citizen (Burnet 29). Socrates placed a lot of importance on being a good human. In fact, that is what he was counting on for his time in the afterlife; that those who were to decide his fate would look kindly upon him and what he did in life. However, if his death was a function of an unjust law and if he could have done something to right the wrongs of that injustice, but he did not, what does that say about Socrates’ own morality and internal ethical system? There are times in life in which laws are unjust and it is the moral obligation of people to step in to make a change. If following a law violates a moral and ethical law, then breaking it is a necessity. Morality and legality are not synonymous, nor does one necessitate the