Socrates: Morality And Loyalty And Obedience To The State

Register to read the introduction… Regardless if the state is right or wrong? It seems that Socrates answered this question when he opted to obey the state of Athens even when he knew it was acting wrongly against him. Socrates showed excessive loyalty that could not be justified by other men of thought. According to Socrates, the fate of a citizen is sealed, that is total and unwavering loyalty and obedience to the state since he chose to live in and be a part of it. He knew, according to him, that he was condemned to death wrongly and yet he refused to escape because he felt it is his obligation as a citizen to obey the authority of the state. To him, a citizen can either persuade the state of what he believes in or obey what the state imposes of beliefs, as this is the agreement the citizen makes with the state.
In view of our modern understanding of the nature of the relation between the citizen and the state, many of us today regard Socrates submission to the false accusation and eventual condemnation of the state as excessive and unjustified. Because to claim that some actions are justified not on their own merit but purely by their status in an agreement, is false. And for Socrates to accept that the risk of wrongful conviction is itself part of the agreement with the state is beyond the understanding of human rights …show more content…
"Until philosophers rule as kings or those who are now called kings and leading men genuinely and adequately philosophize, that is, until political power and philosophy entirely coincide, while the many natures who at present pursue either one exclusively are forcibly prevented from doing so, cities will have no rest from evils,... nor, I think, will the human race”
As such, Plato defined his thoughts of how government should be .Asserting that societies have a tripartite class structure (Productive as workers, Protective as warriors or guardians and Governing as rulers or philosopher kings), he reserved the right to rule for the intellectual elite in a society where the rest are to busy themselves with what they can, and should do best. In his quest for the ideal society, Plato seemed to be more concerned with the notion of justice as the fundamental base of good governing. Political justice, he believed, is harmony among the three classes, a principle that requires that each person fulfill the societal role to which nature fitted him and not interfere in any other business. It is not surprising then that he argued that it is better to be ruled by a bad tyrant, than be a bad democracy ,since here all the people are now responsible for such actions, rather than one individual committing many bad …show more content…
Epicurus who wanted little to do with politics, defined justice as a social contract, as an agreement "neither to harm nor be harmed". The point of living in a society with laws and punishments is to be protected from harm so that one is free to pursue happiness. Because of this, laws that do not contribute to promoting human happiness are not just.
“It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly agreeing -neither to harm nor be harmed- . And it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living a pleasant life”, Plato believed.
Epicureanism incorporated a relatively full account of the “social contract” theory. The social contract theory established by Epicureanism is based on mutual agreement, not divine decree. It is this type of agreement that Epicurus sought to have with the state, an agreement that guarantees him not to harm or be