Socrates Argument
In this paper I will explain Socrates’ agreement at 50 a-b of the Crito, and explain my reason why would not cause his fellow citizens harm by breaking the law. Specially I will show that people can actually create a positive. I will explain that Socrates argument and show how depends on how what the unjust causes. Then I will argue that this assumption is to be questioned under the fact that citizens are not necessarily affected by the law breakers, and that by doing something unjust can be moral. In the Crito, the question that Socrates is getting Crito to answers is “Would fellow Citizens be harmed by breaking the law.” Crito proposes Socrates a plan to escape prison. Socrates listens to each argument debating whether they are morally justified.
…show more content…
In response I would argue that Socrates might have the citizens best interest in mind by staying imprisoned. By acknowledging that understand that Rosa Parks did not know for sure that her action would change the injustice. But if the Socrates assumption in 50c was correct that one must take encounter that Rosa Parks could have caused her fellow citizens hurt, by causing the bus system to falter, and have to deal with the consequence along with her peers. The citizens, nor her soul were harmed in my example. Citizens were not harmed by Parks disobedience to the law, but they actually benefitted. Her soul was not harm because she knew it was time to put an end to the unjust system. It seems to me that Socrates argue that his escape will destroy the laws, and therefore harm the citizens, and soul is a huge exaggeration. Socrates could not predict the effect of his escape acted more on the fear of his action. He did not want to harm the citizens and him a soul. Socrates could have be the first person to stand up for his unjust sentence. Even though he didn’t believe it was unjust, because he would be harming his citizens, but my example shows that no harm would come from breaking the law. Socrates agreement suggests that he can predict the consequence of his actions. If Rosa Parks never to a leap of faith, then she would have been just another African- American going along with the injustice. Socrates is causing for harm by allowing citizens to have an unjust government system where people are sentenced to die being falsely accused. People would argue that citizens were beat, but consider the neglects of authorities. Blacks citizens were being degraded, and were not being treated as human being. The city that was suppose to give to them was suppose to give to them, was taking away their natural born
In response I would argue that Socrates might have the citizens best interest in mind by staying imprisoned. By acknowledging that understand that Rosa Parks did not know for sure that her action would change the injustice. But if the Socrates assumption in 50c was correct that one must take encounter that Rosa Parks could have caused her fellow citizens hurt, by causing the bus system to falter, and have to deal with the consequence along with her peers. The citizens, nor her soul were harmed in my example. Citizens were not harmed by Parks disobedience to the law, but they actually benefitted. Her soul was not harm because she knew it was time to put an end to the unjust system. It seems to me that Socrates argue that his escape will destroy the laws, and therefore harm the citizens, and soul is a huge exaggeration. Socrates could not predict the effect of his escape acted more on the fear of his action. He did not want to harm the citizens and him a soul. Socrates could have be the first person to stand up for his unjust sentence. Even though he didn’t believe it was unjust, because he would be harming his citizens, but my example shows that no harm would come from breaking the law. Socrates agreement suggests that he can predict the consequence of his actions. If Rosa Parks never to a leap of faith, then she would have been just another African- American going along with the injustice. Socrates is causing for harm by allowing citizens to have an unjust government system where people are sentenced to die being falsely accused. People would argue that citizens were beat, but consider the neglects of authorities. Blacks citizens were being degraded, and were not being treated as human being. The city that was suppose to give to them was suppose to give to them, was taking away their natural born