Plato Capital Punishment

Capital punishment is a difficult subject for a lot of people because many question whether or not it is ethical to kill a convicted criminal. In order to critically analyze whether or not it is ethical, I will look at the issue using a utilitarianism approach because in order to get a good grasp of this topic we need to look at how the decision will impact us in the future. The utilitarianism approach will help us to examine this issue and see what some of the consequences are with this topic of capital punishment. For years, capital punishment has been used against criminals and continues to be used today, but lately this type of punishment has come into question because of the ethical question.

In the Crito (and the Apology), Socrates was sentenced to death by vote – and historically speaking the city of Athens was governed by democracy. However, as we have seen from the Republic, Plato advocated for aristocracy. Socrates insisted that it would not be just to escape jail because he had entered into an implicit agreement with the city. Based on Socrates’ argument(s), do you think he supports a democratic state? Is there any discrepancy between Socrates and Plato’s definition of justice?

Ever since the dawn of man’s search for justice, the death penalty, has been a consequence for particularly heinous crimes. Over the years society has debated whether the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. People who oppose of the death penalty view supporters as gun-slinging "rednecks" who live in the backwoods of America. Likewise, supporters view those who oppose the death penalty as uptight "suits" who live in mansions and believes that every person, no matter their crime, deserves to live. Those who oppose the death penalty argue that life in prison is a preferable solution to the death penalty. The supporters of the death penalty argue that Hammurabi’s code, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life, is an

Capital punishment, otherwise known as the death penalty, is a controversial subject which has been argued for decades due to the ethical decisions involved. People believe the death penalty is the right thing to do and that it is the perfect example of ‘justice’ while others believe that it is immoral and overly expensive. The death penalty is not a logical sentence for criminals, it doesn’t give them the right type of justice and it is immoral.

Capital Punishment is a moral controversy in today’s society. It is the judicial execution of criminals judged guilty of capital offenses by the state, or in other words, the death penalty. The first established death penalty laws can date back to the Eighteenth Century B.C. and the ethical debates towards this issue have existed just as long. There is a constant pro-con debate about this issue, and philosophers like Aristotle and Mill have their own take on this controversy as well. Aristotle is against capital punishment, while Mill believes it is morally permissible.

The death penalty or capital punishment has been part of our humanity for years and years. Existed since ancient times, according to people a person who has committed an atrocious act, was sentence to death penalty or capital punishment. The death penalty begins back in the 18th century B.C. in the code of king Hammaurabi of Baylon; who was accused of committing 25 crimes. In years past, the punishments where more crucial then today, the execution procedures had no boundaries, forms of killing where endless. Drowning, whacking, “damnatio ad Bestia” which was death cause by a wild animal, dismemberment: dividing the body into quarter-usually with an ax, throwing then off a high place, impalement: one of the most

In one of Plato's works "Apology", Socrates attempts to defend himself in court of law where he is being prosecuted on corrupting the youth. While defending himself, Socrates also defends his choice of receiving a death penalty, rather then testifying against his beliefs. Although he makes some very strong and valid arguments, lots of readers would wonder why would such a wise man choose death over his life.

If I were to be presented with the opportunity to escape a prison, in which I would be certainly put to death, I would gladly take that opportunity. I am neither a 70 year-old man nor as unquestioning of Athenian law as Socrates. I would value my life, and what I could possibly do with the years I had left, over abiding to Athenian law. Socrates is seen through the writings of Plato as a wise and moral man; yet, he chooses to die, leaving his sons to grow up without his wisdom and teachings. After he is found guilty, he says, “So he proposes death as the penalty.

Firstly, Plato introduces the important concept that it is far worse for one to do wrong than to suffer wrongdoing. Socrates, refusing to be harmed by Meletus, believes that “it is not allowed that a good man be injured by a worse” (pg. 41). Despite Socrates' impending death or banishment, he does not think that these are the worst possible situations and still goes on to say that “it is a much greater evil to do what [Meletus] is doing now, and to try to put a man to death unjustly” (pg. 41). Certainly

In Plato’s works Apology and Crito there is an attempt by Socrates to defend himself in court and defend his choice to receive the death penalty when found guilty. Although he makes very valid and strong arguments throughout one can only wonder why such a wise person would choose death over life. The following essay will analyze three quotes from Apology and Crito, find the correlation between them, and reveal any flaws that may exsist inside these arguments made by Socrates.

In most circumstances ending the life of a criminal as their punishment usually reflects the magnitude of the crimes that they committed, crimes that often involve the deaths of others or equally heinous actions, yet one historical example stands out for not following this rule. In 399 BC, in Athens, Greece, two men put a meek philosopher named Socrates on trial for two crimes he purportedly committed: not following state gods and corrupting the youth. These charges alleged against Socrates reflected the general sentiment of Athenians regarding Socrates; namely that he was an atheistic charlatan. The jury found Socrates guilty of these crimes and executed, a punishment that does not logically befit the supposed crimes that he committed. No sane or logical jury would find him guilty of such vague claims, especially in such a vehemently democratic polis as Athens, and they would never have executed Socrates for such meager offenses, nonetheless he was. Execution was especially unnecessary because Socrates himself was on the verge of death; he was in his seventies in the Greek era, so he was bound to die soon anyways. The central focus, then, is of understanding how on Earth the birthplace of democracy could have gone so awry and when they tried, convicted, and executed Socrates. Athens sentenced Socrates to death because his beliefs were against the flow of the changing Athenian ideological landscape, people regarded him as a pompous, elitist charlatan who impugned their core

Capital Punishment or commonly called as Death Penalty is used in several countries today and in comes from ancient times which was used to penalize many grave offenses. On religious sentiments one considers then Bible advocates for death punishment to those who do unjust with other individuals. However death penalty has caught eye of many human activists and government organizations and has called for a long time debate whether death penalty is ethical or not and has made it one of the most debated issues. More than sixty percent countries in the world have provision of death punishment. However, question of killing someone probably innocent still arises also life and death are in hands of god

Coming from my opinion I think he should of have stayed in prison, but not for that long thought just enough time for him to learn his lesson. I do not think he should have faced his execution. From line 47b knowledge can improve the body. My argument with that is for, example him sitting in that prison taking time to recognize what he is doing is the right choice I do agree with that. Which I do believe that knowledge can improve the body and I think he realizes that too as well while he is in prison. Like Socrates said in the beginning in line 47a knowledge is more important than Opinion. Basically the point he was trying to get across was that he was not worry about what others thought about the situations.

In society there many things that are debated among the people based on their beliefs, morals, and values. For this paper chose the death penalty because it is one of the highly debated topics in not only today’s society but also in the past. The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, it used as a procedure of retaliation against those who commit violent crimes such as murder and other capital crimes. There are many forms of this punishment, for instance, the electric chair, lethal injections, and the firing squad. There are many feelings and arguments in relation to capital punishment. Some people believe that the death penalty is moral because they deserve it and it provides protection to the society. However, in this paper I will argue that capital punishment is totally immoral because it is not fair, is it unnecessary, and unethical.

Plato and Aristotle, arguably the most important philosophers of their time, both made attempts to define justice. Being that Aristotle was a student of Plato, their ideas share many similarities. Both viewed justice as the harmonious interaction of people in a society. However, Plato defined his ideal of justice with more usage of metaphysics, invoking his Form of the Good, while Aristotle took a more practical approach, speaking in terms of money and balance. Although Aristotle's ideal of justice may seem superior, upon further inspection, Plato's ideal of justice is the stronger.