How Did Socrates Live Justly

Regarding Socrates view one should not obey the law just because it is the law. As I said before you have two choices, but one of them is the moral option. We say that it is moral, as it was taught to us this way, but one doesn’t really think about their own opinion in reference to it.

Do we have an obligation to obey any law, no matter how unjust or evil, provided only that it is in fact a valid rule of the legal system in which we happen to be physically located? In the following composition, I am going to examine the answer to this question in accordance to what Socrates believes. The best way to understand this almost “WWSD” (What Would Socrates Do) approach is by looking at Socrates' actions in the three Platonic dialogues we have read. These dialogues bring forth three possible bases for why Socrates believes one should obey the law. First, that there is a distinction between the the “justness” of a law and how that law is applied. Second, that if one willingly accepts living in a

Socrates motives for not escaping could also be understood by his principles. His principle says, “And a good life is equivalent to a just and honorable one.”(1). Socrates believes and lives by doing well to himself and other people. Even though staying in prison would cause him physical damage, he is willing to sacrifice his body in order to save his soul. Because of his belief in living an honorable life, Socrates reasons to stay in prison rather than escaping.

Socrates should not escape from prison to avoid his death sentence because he would be breaking the law which ultimately led to him straying away from his own principles. He was a person who believed in what was just and doing what was morally correct. If he were to escape from prison, he would essentially be harming others and the State. He thought through harming others, he would be harming himself and his soul, so Socrates did not believe in harming others and thought it was unjust and morally wrong. Even though Socrates had the opportunity to escape and he was given plenty of reasons from his friends to do so, he did not want to go against what he believes in and his philosophy. He could not live a life where he would have to stop

More importantly, Socrates’s relationship to the state is made clear during the dialogue with his friend Crito, when speaking as if Socrates is the state himself. When asking how important the state is, the law asks; “Is your…country to be honored more than…all your ancestors…that it counts for more among the gods and sensible men, that you must worship it…?” Rather than a statement, Socrates makes his point that the law must be upheld, even in his case of a death sentence. It is important to note that Socrates accepted his fate, even though he felt the accusations against him were false. Yet, as if speaking on behalf of the law, recognized that escaping would only turn those untruthful indictments into the truth, and as a destroyer of laws; “You will strengthen the conviction of the jury that they passed the right sentence on you.” By the definition of the word martyr, as one who dies for a cause, in this instance the laws of the state,

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,

Socrates was brought into the courts under charges of impiety and corruption of minors. Socrates did not believe in the divinities of the city-state. The punishment decided upon was an execution, in the hope that Socrates would choose exile, a punishment that would have satisfied the jury.

To Socrates laws only have meaning because the people give them meaning and only by following the laws do we see the actual value of them. According to Socrates the relationship of the people and the states are like that of a child and their parents. He claims that state raises the people by guiding them with laws giving them order and educates the people of what’s right and what’s wrong. Socrates does not believe in disobeying the law to set examples as you would not disobey your parents just to prove a point. Socrates is appreciative for what state has done for him and feels as if it is his duty and obligation to repay them or show gratitude to the state by following its laws.

During Socrates’ defense against Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon in Plato’s Apology, Socrates states that he will refuse the jury’s decision, regarded as the Law of Athens, if the court were to acquit him on the basis that he stops practicing philosophy. However, later in Plato’s Crito, Socrates explains he cannot escape from prison due to the laws of Athens and thus adheres to the jury’s decision of a death sentence. Despite appearing to contradict himself, Socrates is actually not contradicting himself at all. Socrates asserts that he did nothing wrong in regard to the laws of Athens and has never been a bad example for the youth in comparison to everyone in the audience and jury. If Socrates were to lament and agree to the acquittal in order to live, then he would be going against his philosophical mission from god and would be agreeing that he did do something wrong; this is why Socrates testifies that he would die rather than agree to stop practicing philosophy. Since escaping jail to avoid death would contradict his ideals, Socrates refuses to disobey the laws of Athens, which he always adheres to, and decides he will commit to his sentencing despite the fact he is unjustly convicted. In both cases, Socrates is standing up for his ideals of philosophy and to his notion of goodness, which allows him to sensibly and honestly state that he will adhere to the jury (and therefore the Laws of Athens) in one case and is able to refuse to adhere to their judgments in another.

Socrates has presented a period of questions and answers through dialogue with Crito to examine if he going into exile will damage his reputation. Socrates questions and answers with Crito establishes that a person must decide whether the society he or she lives has a just reasoning behind it's own standards of right and wrong and that a person must have pride in the life that he or she leads. By confirming these two concepts through questions, Socrates attempted to prove to his companion Crito, that the choice that he has made is just: "I am the kind of man who listens only to the argument that on reflection seems best to me. I cannot, now that this fate has come upon me, discard the arguments I used;

To this question, first Socrates says that he should not revenge injustice. Because doing injustice is bad in any circumstances (Crito 49b), to return injustice just because of having injustice done onto himself would bad also (Crito 49c). Therefore Socrates should not commit injustice just to get even with Athens. Injustice is bad because it harms, and disobedience to the law would harm the city (Crito 50b); so it seems that to disobey the law would be an injustice. But why should Socrates obey the law of the city? Socrates reasons that since the city has done him great benefactions, such as giving birth to his life, taking care of his physical upbringing and his education, and granting him long years of benefits from the legal system (Crito 50e - 51c), Socrates owns the state a strong duty of gratitude just as a child would own to his father. One of those duties is to obey the state (like how a child obeys his parents), which always has included the possibility of death such as in times of war (Crito 51b). Socrates should obey the city because he has made an agreement to do so. This agreement is the social contract that he has implicitly accepted and lived under for 70 years. This contract is legitimate because Socrates had a thorough understanding of the legal system (Crito 51e - 52a), he did not leave the city when he was given the fair chance all his life (Crito 51 c-e), and that he

Socrates was a Greek philosopher, who is one of the founders of western philosophy. Socrates never wrote down his ideas or thoughts, his students or compressors, Plato, wrote down his ideas and thoughts. Socrates was accused of expressing there were different Gods and he was brought to trial in 399.B.C.E. Socrates character, in the different passages I read, Euthyphro, Apology and Citro are a little contradictory. And if the act of persuading the state is the only alternative to blind obedience, why did Socrates' in both of specifically in his defense and generally in his career make so little effort to persuade the people when they were acting unjustly? In this essay I hope to demonstrate how Socrates character contradicts in these different passages and why didn't he persuade the people when the people were acting so unjustly.

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.

Socrates would rather be punished or die before he breaks the laws that were set forth by his state, and this he says later in the same passage, “I should run any risk on the side of law and justice rather than join you. (Cahn pg. 38 Apology b10-c2).”

In the Republic, Socrates takes up the question of whether a just person will be better off than an unjust person. He refutes Thrasymachus’ claim that an unjust person is wise and good and argues that no one in any rule, who, in so far as he is wise and good tries to outdo someone like himself in the same domain. Only an ignorant and bad man will always want to outperform everyone. I shall present Socrates’ argument about justice, as well as, I shall object the argument with the point that in the craft of business, companies should compete to get better overtime. After that, I will challenge the objection, in order to show that businesses are able to improve without competition.