Should one obey the law just because it is the law? What does Socrates think? What do you think? An unexamined life is not worth living Apology.
Socrates does show us that civil law should be treated as a moral obligation, by proving that to ignore the rule of law would be to commit moral wrong. He then qualifies this by illustrating that lawfulness is not always equal to virtuousness, and explaining how to remain virtuous without damaging the authority of the law.
Further examination of his arguments in regards to civil disobedience reveal inconsistency and the necessity for further development. The most important facet in his argument is the claim which the interlocutor Crito quickly agrees to that it is never justified to do evil.
No matter what has been suffered before, no matter what good comes of it, doing wrong is unacceptable to Socrates any way you put it.
After making this statement, the next step is to use it to demonstrate that there is a moral obligation to obey civil law. He creates two sound examples to prove this. First, he equates the state to a father-like figure that guides, nourishes and provides protection for its subjects in order that they should flourish and learn.
The state is what allows for our existence in the first place. In this way, the state and the individual are not on equal terms; the state clearly takes precedence.
Socrates, speaking on behalf of the state, poses the question: No matter what your feelings about your master, no matter what harm has come to you, reciprocation by committing your own moral wrong is impious.
By not adhering to its clearly stated principles, an individual is disrespecting the state and committing moral wrong.
Secondly, he explains the relationship between the law and the individual is contractual. If someone does not choose to enter into this contract, he is free to leave the state at any time. However, if he remains within the state, he is automatically committed to the contract, meaning he must adhere to civil law.
In simpler terms, if you choose to enjoy the benefits the state offers you protection, education, liberty, order, et al. There is no discrepancy about whether or not an individual thinks the law to be just or desirable.
The only loophole to escaping a contract is if, according to Socrates, in order to fulfill it, you must commit moral wrong. We know from above that it is never justified to do evil.
In summary, it is morally wrong to violate a just agreement. In the Apology, Socrates clearly declares: On the one extreme, it would be impossible to run a city or state if everyone answered to divine authority instead of that of man.
On the other hand, blindly accepting the law under any circumstance is the very definition of a totalitarian state.
What are Socrates' views on the relation between moral, political and legal obligation? Should one obey the law just because it is the law? What does Socrates think? What do you think?. right,' it does not follow that humans have a moral obligation to obey professional codes, law, religious ethics. socrates' moral obligation to civil law In the Crito, Socrates gives an explanation about why he must remain in his jail cell and accept his sentence by using moral reasoning. The most important facet in his argument is the claim (which the interlocutor Crito quickly agrees to) that it is never justified to do evil.4/4(1). However, if he remains within the state, he is automatically committed to the contract, meaning he must adhere to civil law. In simpler terms, if you choose to enjoy the benefits the state offers you (protection, education, liberty, order, et al.), you have an obligation to do as the state ordains.
However, this does not include feeling wronged or feeling victimized by the law, and certainly does not include revolutionary action or sentiment. Furthermore, those who are asked to commit moral wrong for the sake of the law have the moral right to disobey, but they must still accept the penalty, just as Socrates chooses to do despite feeling that he was wrongfully convicted.
The second option is a democratic ideal that provides a loophole for those who feel wronged by the law. In a functioning democratic society, individuals get the opportunity to persuade the governing authority that the“A just law is a man made code that square with the moral law or the law of God.
law to show the injustice of a law, Socrates could not have acted in civil disobedience. his obligation. The dialogue "Crito" recounts Socrates' last days, immediately before his execution. As the text reveals, his friend Crito proposes to Socrates that he escape from prison.
The moral justification of a law is quite another pair of gloves. there could not be any automatic moral obligation in respect to positive, man-made laws.
In fact. The Law Of Obligation And The Criminal Law Words | 7 Pages. system law has been described as a common law rather than a civil law system. To begin with, there is a significant difference between the civil and criminal law. On the one hand, the purpose of the .
What are Socrates' views on the relation between moral, political and legal obligation?
Should one obey the law just because it is the law? Should one obey the law just because it is the law? What does Socrates think? What do you think?. right,' it does not follow that humans have a moral obligation to obey professional codes, law.
There are at least four reasons that legitimately motivate a cautious, nuanced understanding of Socrates’ position concerning one’s moral obligation to civil law. First, the question under consideration in the Crito differs from the matter under consideration in the Apology with which it apparently contradicts.
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 Home Page; Writing; Is There a Moral Obligation to Obey the Law?
he makes clear his views regarding civil disobedience. Socrates’ view on morality is that anyone can do wrong.
It is said that injuring someone in.