{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

HW Assignment 2 - them they would cease to be laws A...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
PHIL 100 Briana Baillie Jan 27 th 2011 The Crito Socrates gives three arguments to Crito that it is unjust to break the law and thus it is unjust for him to escape. Which of these arguments is strongest and why do you think so? The argument in which he states ‘do you imagine that a city can continue to exist and not be turned upside down, if the legal judgments which are pronounced in it have no force but are nullified and destroyed by private persons?’I believe is the strongest argument. In this argument he is trying to make the point that if one person decides to set aside those laws for whatever reason it makes the laws and society in which those laws are supposed to be enforced a sham. In disobeying the laws of a state you are in effect destroying said laws, because if everyone decided to break
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: them they would cease to be laws. A lawless society is no society, and no society is a loss of culture, protection, and the ability to evolve. In destroying something for your own gain you are being unjust and impious. Socrates believes that the only way to live is logically, and logically there is a distinct difference between right and wrong. It is wrong to be unjust. So if you are destroying the state by breaking the law you are in turn being unjust which is wrong. So logically escaping is wrong and there is no way around that. I believe that this would have been the strongest argument to Socrates because it was a clearly logical argument dealing with right and wrong, being just or unjust. He would rather die as a just man than live unjustly....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online