Plato's View Of Murder

Based on the definition of murder is, The killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the

Euthyphro’s argument is hurt extensively by the information he neglects to mention. Euthyphro does not say whether he witnessed the crime in person, or if he heard about it at a later date. He does not outline how he knows the information he puts forth, and fails to mention his own role in the scenario, which is crucial to the credibility of his accusatory words. If, by Euthyphro’s logic, his father is a murderer due to intentional neglect of the slave who died, then Euthyphro himself can be considered an accomplice, or a murderer as well for being present for or aware of the killing as it occurred and doing nothing to prevent it. His sloppy thinking results in self-incrimination through his own potential unjust behaviors, thus ruining the cogency of his view. There is no mention of Euthyphro’s relationship with his father, either. It is entirely possible that the father and son have a history of intense strife, and if Euthyphro has a grudge with his father over a prior conflict, his entire argument is flawed at its foundation. His motive for prosecuting his father could be revenge rather than the pursuit of justice and truth in the events that may or may not have happened in the way Euthyphro describes them. Any detail given by Euthyphro could be fabricated for the sake of retribution, aside from the death itself. The perishing of the slave is the only part of Euthyphro’s narrative which has physical evidence (that being the corpse of the slave). Everything else has to be believed as truth in order for Euthyphro’s claims to achieve the goal of cogency, but the speculative nature of his thinking makes trusting his words a difficult task. Before even stepping into the courtroom, it is obvious that Euthyphro’s defense is faulty due to what it lacks.

I believe that everyone that received punishment did not deserve it. It was only the cruel wooers’ that tried to take away what he had earned. The main one that should’ve been killed was Antinous. I like how he gives him a razor sharp arrow to the neck. Antinous wasn’t only the first suitor to die but he was also the leader of the suitors. Meaning that all the suitors followed after what he did. When he tried to steal Penelope from Odysseus for the wealth and power, they tried to do the same. Some suitors such as Eurymachus did not deserve it. I think that Odysseus should’ve killed all the disrespectful suitors and the others ones made slaves or set them free. I wouldn’t have killed Eurymachus because he begged for mercy so I would’ve just made him a slave.

Have you ever acted out in retribution for something done to you? Some examples could be if you punched someone for intentionally kicking you, or if someone deliberately hurt the feelings of someone you love and you retaliated in kind. You probably thought the punishment you received for your actions was too harsh or lenient. Many factors went into the decision of what discipline you received for this act and some were fair while others probably were not. This is true for the actions of many people in Aeschylus’s Oresteia. In each of the three plays, someone is seeking vengeance for a wrong done unto them, someone they know/love, or both. For this paper, I will be focusing on the vengeance enacted by Clytemnestra, Orestes, and the Fates. The vengeance that each person enacted was deemed just or unjust depending on many factors including the people who were doing the judging. Vengeance in Aeschylus’s Oresteia is viewed through the social lens of the society that it was enacted in. This lens is made up of the popular values, beliefs, and social conventions of the period as well as the judge’s personal views and/or experiences. These factors (such as gender and relation to the victim, as well as the presence or absence of transgressions on the characters part) lead to different opinions about the guilt of the accused individual and the individual themselves. The view of vengeance in Aeschylus’s Oresteia is very subjective.

California Penal Code; 187 is very well known, refers to murder. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought. Indeed, we the people like to question every law to know the punishment. Murder has different levels accompanied with different scenarios. Throughout this paper, I will be discussing and analyzing the following: degrees of murder, Felony Murder Rule, and manslaughter.

What was a good life like for a man in Ancient Greece, according to Plato’s four dialogs on The Trail and Death of Socrates? One might answer this question by examining what life in general was like for a man in Ancient Greece to determine what a good life was like. The Trial and Death of Socrates written by Plato a student of Socrates is the account of his life, defense and death. This novel is written in four dialogues “Euthyphro, Apology, Crito and Phaedo.”

One of the most ancient mystery yet unsolved is the question pertaining to death and the afterlife. This mystery is one of the fundamental studies in both field of philosophy and religion. Comparing those who believe in a god-existing religion against those who don’t, we often see many differences in the answers relating to death. In the contrary, the similar answers to theist and atheist are evident strongly in two great thinkers and their works. The focus will be on Socrates’ speech in the Apology by Plato setting in 399 BCE and De Rerum Natura by Titus Lucretius 300 years later.

Socrates was found guilty of the following accusations; corrupting the youth, believing in different gods, or being an atheist, and for “examining” the heavens above and the earth below. He inclined for a fine that could be paid instead of facing banishment, however, the court decided to give him the death penalty. There he slept in prison when Criton approached and attempted to persuade him to escape. He declined as it would go against his logic and reasoning he taught his whole life. Was it “just” of him to accept the death penalty that was catalyzed by absurd accusations? This paper will argue that it was Socrates “right” to accept the death penalty due to the consent he made with the society he resided in.

Plato’s Republic proposes a number of intriguing theories, ranging from his contemporary view of ethics to political idealism. It is because of Plato’s emerging interpretations that philosophers still refer to Plato’s definitions of moral philosophy as a standard. Plato’s possibly most argued concept could be said to be the analogy between city and soul in Book IV, partially due to his expansive analysis of justice and the role justice plays in an “ideal city,” which has some key flaws. Despite these flawed assumptions that my essay will point out, Plato’s exposition on ethics is still relevant for scholars and academics to study, due to his interpretive view on morality and justice.

Oedipus killed a person that just so happens to be his father and that makes him guilty. “Crimes worse than deadly done against them both”, says Oedipus, as he realizes the extent of his actions. He knew what he has done was way out of his control even though he fought hard to avoid his fate. Oedipus knew wrong was wrong, agreeing that his actions were indeed a crime.

I contend that Plato 's theories on morality are persuaded by concerns he had about moral theory. Specifically, Plato rejects rationality as the boost of subjectively evaluated self-interest because, had he received such an account, his hypothesis of justice would be liable to reactions which he holds are lethal to the contractarian theory of justice. While detailing a hypothesis to stay inside ethical constraints in some cases disregards the groups of scientific theorizing, Plato maintains to avoid this mistake.

Homicide always will be an aspect of life, whether it is in the 16th century, 21st century or in the future. At times of extreme stress, people may turn to murder as an outlet of a greater problem they cannot fix or control. Presently, homicide has a greater value in society due to popular culture references through the media such as television, film and writing; society constantly has homicide and murder in the subconscious. In David M. Buss’ findings in The Murderer Next Door: Why the Mind is Designed to Kill,

In Plato’s Republic he defines justice as “doing one’s own work and not meddling with what is not one’s own” (Plato 139, 433b). This definition begs the question what is one’s own work? Plato states that one’s own work is the work that one’s nature is best suited for, as each person is born with a different nature (Plato 101, 370b). To come to this definition Plato compares justice within the human soul to justice within a city. If Plato can find justice within the city and prove that the individual is only a smaller version of the city then he will have found the form of justice, the aspect by which we recognize justice in anything else.

In the United States the degrees by which a person can be charged with killing another person vary; the degrees of murder include first, second, and third degree murder, the definitions of which can vary in legal terms from state to state. These charges are considered to be legally separate from voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, and justifiable homicide which each have their own definitions (Cole, Smith, & DeJong, 2014). Each type of murder, manslaughter and homicide is determined by intent and negligible behavior and each will be examined in this paper (Cole et al., 2014).

Society today is comprised of many different races, ethnicities and minds that think differently and similarly on various topics. The interpretation of homicide is a topic that may be considered to be a universally accepted social more. A common misconception of homicide is that it is used similarly to murder but homicide is general in scope than murder. Murder is a form of homicide that constitutes a criminal act. There are also other forms of homicide that do not comprise of criminal acts. Homicides of this nature are regarded as justifiable or excusable. An example of a justifiable homicide is when an individual is in peril they may out of self-defence