Differences Of Crito By Plato And Leviathan By Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes then begins to explain that what any one man has another may take at will. Some men take pleasure in the conquest of what belongs to another and will take more than they need, while others are content with the bare essentials. Hobbes states that, because it is in man's nature to increase his own power it should be “allowed.” Hobbes states that there are three causes for quarrels between men, the first being competition and the want for man to gain from another through violence. The second is diffidence, or a lack of confidence in one’s own ability of worth which in turn causes men to fight for safety, perhaps to distract another from his insecurities. The third is for the sake of glory, or to secure his reputation. Thomas Hobbes says that, because all men have a natural animalistic inclination to fight for what we want and believe we deserve, a “common power”, a government or hierarchy of some sort, is vital to maintaining a semblance of peace. Hobbes muses that, without security outside of us there will be no industry or commodities, no modern comforts, no society. Without someone to lord over us in some way our future will be one of “continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short…” (pg. 48). And, while we enjoy the

Socrates did not want to break any of his principles because he reasoned to think that his moral beliefs were more important than his family. Socrates in his dialogue says, “Think not of life and children first, and of justice afterwards, but of justice first.”(1). His idea seems callous towards his personal relationships in life. However, Socrate’s friend, Crito, pursues him when he says, “But you are choosing the easier part, as I=2 0think, not the better and manlier.”(1). Socrates is given this statement by his friend in order to pursue him to change his mind to escape. However, Socrates insists in following good principles according to his wisdom. His friend was now just understanding why Socrates decided to stay in prison rather than escaping his wrongful death sentence.

In The Crito by Socrates, both Crito and Socrates present arguments, one that Socrates should escape prison, and one that he should not. Crito’s argument contains logic fallacies that undermine his argument and make it weak. Therefore, Socrates argument that he should remain in prison and face his death is valid and strong, and is better than Crito’s.

What is justice? Is it a fitting punishment for a crime? Or a court or officer of the law? Is it the law itself? It has many definitions and interpretations, depending on various people. Some interpret it very simply, saying that it is fairness in every situation. Others give the word more complication, saying that it is doing what is morally right and fair. Oxford Dictionary defines it as many things, including, “Just behaviour or treatment...The quality of being fair and reasonable.” Black’s Law Dictionary defines justice as, “The constant and perpetual disposition to render every man his due.” All are various meanings and interpretations of one, single, word, that has been explored in many books and novels, including one by Harper Lee. In her novel To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee uses the characters of Atticus and Mr. Raymond to show the meaning of true justice and how it transcends prejudicial divisions.

His answer allows us to reach the core of his political theory found in chapter 13 of Leviathan. The chapter opens with his bold proclamation; “Nature hath made men so equal” (Hobbes Ch. 13, 76). Hobbes is expressing a simple statement. We are all beings of desire and we all seek ways, through power, to satisfy those desires. In Hobbes eyes, we are all somewhat equal, yet some are stronger or smarter. However, all humans have weaknesses and therefore all humans are equally vulnerable. Hobbes illustrates this point as follows:

In the Crito, Socrates believes that breaking the laws of the city harms all of society. The consequences of escaping the city outweigh the benefits for it puts his family, his friends, and himself in danger. He believes in a personal morality that one must live a good and just life, and not just any life. If Socrates breaks the law then he would not be acting justly,

In order to give a little hindsight, I will discuss the dialogues between Socrates and Crito in Plato’s “The Crito”; the scene beings with Crito waking up Socrates’ in his jail cell and questioning how he seemed so calm and peaceful when the time for his execution was approaching at a rapid pace. Socrates, as calm as ever, replies that he is willing to die if it is the will of God. Crito begins to try to convince Socrates to escape from his cell by using different reasoning’s. Crito explains that if he rejected the idea of escaping and was executed, he would lose a loving and loyal friend and he would have to live with the fault of failing to save his life. On a more ethical level, Crito present more compelling cases: firstly, if he had stayed, he would helping his enemies in wronging him unjustly, and would then be acting unjustly himself; and second, that he

For example, in The Round House justice is what happens when the scale of morality is balanced out. As such, it is a concept of rightness. When someone does something wrong, they must pay for it. The recognition and consequences of their crime are recognized as justice. Justice has so many aspects to it that many people get caught up in the webs of the justice system. Some would argue that seeking justice

In Plato’s Crito Socrates argues that it would be wrong for him to escape from prison. Speaking to his friend Cirto, Socrates explains that escaping from prison would go against many of his beliefs. Socrates believes in seeking the truth, not repaying a wrong with another wrong, and obeying the laws of the state. He also states that escaping from prison would ruin his reputation and is in best interest for everyone. Crito brings up many arguments to Socrates trying to convince him to escape. Crito tries to appeal to Socrates in many different ways and bombards him with many arguments. Every argument that Crito brings up to Socrates, he answers with carful thinking and analysis. Crito appeals to Socrates emotions by stating that his friends and family will be lost without him. He

A man facing an unjust execution is presented with another option: escape from prison and flee to another providence. Most men would eagerly take this chance to prolong their lives and continue their journey on earth. Most men would do anything to get revenge for the wrong that has been done to them. However, most men are not like Socrates. Socrates did not plead his case by eliciting pity from the jury for an old man and his poor family. He did not beg for a different sentence that would allow him to live. Instead, he let the jury come to its own conclusion while acting with virtue and integrity. He held fast to his principles by remaining in prison to face his execution because that is how a good and just person would behave. Socrates’ decision not to escape in Crito is consistent with his principle that the good and just person never does harm to a large extent because accepting his verdict allows him to reinforce the sanctity of law and to set a prime example for his peers.

He also explains to Crito 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. Rather than simply break the laws and escape, Socrates should try to persuade the laws to let him go. These laws present the citizen's duty to them in the form of a kind of social contract. By choosing to live in Athens, a citizen is endorsing the laws, and is willing to follower by them. Therefore, if he was to break from prison now, having so consistently validated the social contract, he would be making himself an outlaw who would not be welcome in any other civilized state for the rest of his life. Furthermore when he dies, he will be harshly judged in the underworld for behaving unjustly toward his city's laws. In this way, Socrates chooses not to attempt escape but he dies as a martyr, not for himself, but for his city and its system of justice.

Crito believes that Socrates is acting unjustly by staying in prison. Deciding to stay in prison, Socrates letting his enemies treat him the way they want to and by doing so

The term justice is used in some of America's most treasured and valued documents, from the Pledge of Allegiance, to the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. Everyone wants to be treated justly whether it's in the courtroom or the local bar. Most people would feel confident giving a definition for justice, but would it be a definition we could universally agree to? Given that justice is a very common term, and something we all want, it's important to have a precise definition. For hundreds of years philosophers have argued, debated, and fought over this topic. Justice can clearly be defined as the intention to conform to truth and fairness. This is true justice.

How does a “just” society operate? What are the roles of the individuals? One of the earlier concepts of justice dates back to Plato and his work the Republic. Plato constructs his ideal state to find the meaning of Justice and dissects human nature and its role in society in doing so. Overall, he described justice in a hypothetical society where every individual does what they are best as. His ideal society is where individuals must perform its appropriate role and each must be in the right position of power in relation to the others. However, this portrayal of a perfect society does not bode well with Hobbes’ theory of a “just” society. Both Plato’s Republic and Hobbes’ Leviathan work to define justice but present differing views of the

Hobbes suggests three causes of the nature of man. First, competition; Second, Diffidence; third, glory. Human exercise violence first to gain their desire, and secondly to defend their gains, and lastly for one’s own reputation. On the ground that we are all in a state of war, Hobbes states, “In such conditions, there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain…no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, NO SOCIETY, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death…” (Leviathan, XIII). Therefore, the idea of justice or injustice cannot have a place in our society where there is no power.