Morality Essay

Upon reading Plato, The Trial and Death of Socrates, Socrates strongly held views on the relationship between morality and laws become apparent to the reader. Equally, Socrates makes clear why laws should be followed and why disobedience to the law is rarely justified.

Socrates was a man who spent most of his time talking to people. He would ask them hypothetical questions, and make them think for themselves about the true answer they believed in, by serving as a guide for the conversation. Many people, including the accusers, believed that while Socrates did this, he was serving as a Sophist. A Sophist is a person who talks to people, and teaches them how to argue a point, whether the point is right or wrong. A Sophist would collect money for this lesson, and go on with their teachings (Xenophon 42). This accusation is inaccurate because Socrates did not collect any money for his conversations with people. Instead, Socrates was a very poor man, who happened to have rich friends. Talking to these people was a way for Socrates to try to spread his way of life to the Athenian's. He enjoyed conversing with people about ethical issues, and moral beliefs. In his argument, Socrates refutes Meletus' charge that he corrupts the young. One crucial point deals with the idea of Socrates as a paid teacher. This would imply that Socrates was actively seeking students and teaching "corrupting" ideas. This plays a part in the argument, by Meletus, that Socrates has deliberately corrupted the youth. Socrates says that, "the young men who follow me around of their own free will, those who have most leisure, the sons

The Republic by Plato examines many aspects of the human condition. In this piece of writing Plato reveals the sentiments of Socrates as they define how humans function and interact with one another. He even more closely Socrates looks at morality and the values individuals hold most important. One value looked at by Socrates and his colleagues is the principle of justice. Multiple definitions of justice are given and Socrates analyzes the merit of each. As the group defines justice they show how self-interest shapes the progression of their arguments and contributes to the definition of justice.

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.

3. Another crucial piece of dialogue is Socrates's discussion of what would happen if they were to acquit him of the charges and allow him to live if he would stop discussing his philosophy. To this line of reasoning Socrates avows that he would not be willing or even able to cease his discussions and his practice of philosophy because he believes it is a task put on him by the gods, 29d paraphrased. This statement displays Socrates's deep need to live a life of integrity. Further he proclaims that were he to live he will continue to “go around doing nothing but persuading both young and old among you not to care for your body or wealth in preference to or as strongly as for the best possible state of your soul” 30a-b. Socrates's main concern is the welfare of the souls of all

The belief that morality requires God remains a widely held moral maxim. In particular, it serves as the basic assumption of the Christian fundamentalist's social theory. Fundamentalists claim that all of society's troubles - everything from AIDS to out-of-wedlock pregnancies - are the result of a breakdown in morality and that this breakdown is due to a decline in the belief of God. This paper will look at different examples of how a god could be a bad thing and show that humans can create rules and morals all on their own. It will also touch upon the fact that doing good for the wrong reasons can also be a bad thing for the person.

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 Apology, Plato 's representation of Socrates states "as I thought and believed, to live the life of a philosopher, to examine myself and others". This statement is a response to the scornful remarks of the accusers asking him if he is not ashamed of where his "human wisdom" has gotten him. Socrates states that a "man who is any good" should only consider "whether he is acting like a good or a bad man". It is evident that Socrates views good character as an important trait of a wise person. He goes on to say that all men should take care

In Plato’s Five Dialogue Apology section, Plato records the actual speech that Socrates delivered in his own defense at the trial. Basically, Socrates is accused to the action of corrupting youth, which he taught norms and value to many people and charge a fee for it (19d6). He is also accused to the action of teaching spiritual things, for not believing in Athens god, and last but not least, Hubris, the question of human wisdom. Socrates, in fact, provides brilliant responses towards all accusations that are charged against him, saying that not one of them is true (19d5). Among these accusations, I will try to prove that Socrates is not guilty against the accusation that is charged to him in terms of the human wisdom, in which Socrates is accused of claiming to be the wisest man of all, a student of all things in the sky and below the earth (18b6).

James Rachels' article, "Morality is Not Relative," is incorrect, he provides arguments that cannot logically be applied or have no bearing on the statement of contention. His argument, seems to favor some of the ideas set forth in cultural relativism, but he has issues with other parts that make cultural relativism what it is.

What arguments do Socrates and his interlocutors provide in these dialogues and what does their discussion suggest about the way in which virtue is in fact acquired? Socrates initiates the inquiries into this problem in each dialogue the same way, that is, to admit no knowledge of the subject at hand. He further admits that he could not possibly teach virtue without knowing what virtue is, “if I do not know what a thing is, how could I know what to teach?” (ho de me oida ti estin,

Therefore, if these things are not exchanged with the help of wisdom then Socrates believes that the aspect of virtue is “…a mere illusion.” (Phaedo 69b). In conclusion, Socrates view on morality is based upon justice, examining how to live, and expanding one’s wisdom.

Morality is defined as a system or code that we humans use to differentiate between right and wrong. This system could be derived from a number of factors: religion, culture, and upbringing. It is difficult enough to determine what an individual's morals are, but going further to determine how we came to possess those morals is even more ambitious. Still, regardless of its difficulty, this subject consumes many philosophers and psychologists. One such moral psychologists, Jonathan Haidt, is theorizing the possibility of evolution causing ones morality. Haidt is a moral psychologist at the Universtiy of Virgina further believes that complex social structures such as religion and politics as well as our need for social structures affect

Although Socrates encourages questioning authority, he focuses on achieving morality and justice. He believes that

The Republic of Plato begins in a similar fashion that many other Platonic dialogues begin, with that of a question. The conversation between Socrates and the aged Cephalus becomes a philosophical discussion of what advantages money has brought to Cephalus' life. Cephalus replies that money has allowed him "to tell the truth and pay one's debts" (331 b). Nevertheless, Socrates believes this does not portray an accurate description of what justice is. The rest of the first book is a discussion of the definition of justice, mainly that of Thrasymachus' definition. Socrates takes his normal role as an interrogator of peoples' views. The conversation focuses on justice but actually must be viewed in the context of how each