Socrates - Essay Example

Socrates Socrates was a Greek philosopher, whereas Cicero was a Roman rhetor. Socrates was born in 469 BC, while Cicero was born in 106 BC, so these philosophers expressed their wisdom in different epochs. They both used dialogues as a narrative and a polemical form to develop the state of mind of their students. Socratic dialogues criticized practices of the society, and it appeared that Socrates pretended to undermine undoubtful opinions of his students. On the other hand, Socrates and Cicero imposed different arguments to provide an understanding on the subject of justice. Therefore, 'Crito' implicated a hypothesis on a problem whether philosophers' escapes from jails would have been defined as an act of justice. Furthermore, Cicero analyzed the duties of justice from two relevant perspectives. According to him, justice must have been treated with only a respect for humanity. At the same time, he defined justice as not causing harm to any individual; analogically, Cicero forbade to lay a claim on property that belonged to another person. Socrates and Cicero both stated that justice was a key virtue in the society. These philosophers had a clear opinion that justice dealt with matters relating to an idea of fairness (Cicero, 20; Jowett, 4). For instance, Cicero stated that righteous behaviour was a key ingredient of justice. According to the rhetor, meritocracy deserved to be extremely important for a justice' hegemony in the society. In order to achieve meritocracy, people needed to abide the laws that were issued in their community. From the other perspective, Socrates refused to escape from prison stating that this possible action of him must have been regarded as being totally unjust. He assumed that escaping from prison was equal to injuring the laws of Athens (Jowett, 5). Philosopher believed that escaping from prison would have been a case of returning an injustice for an injustice. Socrates and Cicero both believed that justice dealt with an idea of fairness. Therefore, Cicero argued that abiding the rule of law ensured equal distribution of rights in the society (Cicero, 21). Similarly, just law promoted fairness. In fact, these philosophers stated that justice demanded that people got what they truly deserved (Cicero, 20; Jowett, 2). Socrates always explained that emotions could alter one's judgement when deciding between a just decision and an unjust decision, because emotions could force an individual to commit an act of injustice. So, Socrates denied Crito’s plan to help him in a form of escaping from the gail. But, Crito forced a thesis that the philosopher's escape would have been just because the sentence he faced in Athens was injust. Socrates answered that justice at all time involved facing a fair trial and getting a fair sentence afterwards. He stated that although his sentence was unjust he had an obligation to obey the laws of Athens (Jowett, 12). He argued that his duty to Athens was to accept the sentence. Generally, Socrates and Cicero acknowledged that the laws served interests of the people and they did not subjugate to desires of the prominent leaders of demos or populi Roma (Cicero, 35; Jowett, 15). Then, Socrates said that justice was all about fulfilling one's obligation; for example, when an individual had a debt the just thing to do was to return the debt in time. He strongly discouraged people from viewing justice as a punishment or a revenge. According to the philosopher, retaliation was unacceptable. Analogically, philosopher considered retaliation as a wrong way of justifying his escape from the gail; according to Socrates, act of retaliation, as a rule, resulted in harming another individual. He argued that if in the process of seeking justice one ended up harming another person, then the person seeking justice was committing an injustice (Jowett, 13). From Crito’s view (when planning Socrates' escape), every philosopher was supposed to fight against the unjust sentence. Then, Socrates stated that retaliation against the unjust sentence was an unjust thing. From his point of view, escaping prison would have meant only returning an injustice for an injustice. Stating that doing harm and doing injustice was the same thing, however, Socrates made an exception for the case of self-defence. Philosopher explained that if an individual was attacked and in the process of self-defence he harmed his attacker it will not have been the same as returning an injustice for an injustice (Jowett, 14). Evidently, Cicero and Socrates agreed that justice was in doing no injury to individual (Cicero, 20; Jowett, 14). But, like Socrates, Cicero made an exception that a wrongful act could provoke an individual to harm another person seriously (Cicero, 21). Cicero considered conflict resolution as a way of achieving justice. According to the rhetor, military conflicts could have been resolved through negotiation or usage of physical force. Negotiating for obtaining peace when war was an example of behaving humanly. Scholar defined usage of force as a beastly approach for the conflict resolution. Usage of force resulted in harming the enemy. He suggested that usage of force should have been the last source during the process of conflict resolution. So, Cicero and Socrates used different example to illustrate that resorting to a wrongful act leaded to cases of injustice (Cicero, 23; Jowett, 13). Cicero pointed out that failing to prevent an injustice was an injustice. For example, intention to begin a military operation without trying out negotiations would have been unjust. He stated clearly that factors such as greed, furious, personal interests led people to commit the acts of injustice (Cicero, 33). Cicero suggested that wrongful people should had themselves far away from options of revenge or punishment. He assumed that treating the enemy mercifully was one of the ways of resolving conflicts. Successful conflict resolution promoted justice; in fact, Cicero believed it was possible to resolve conflicts and avoid harming others (Cicero, 34). Socrates and Cicero explained it was so important to limit emotions and personal feelings when resolving conflicts (Socrates, 33; Jowett, 15). Crito feared \the unjust decision against Socrates, which feeling forced him to plan Socrates' escape from Athens. However, he deduced that his escape from Athens would have been unjust, arguing that it was wrong to returned injustice when harmed. Scholar evaluated his planned escape to an act of injustice; according to Socrates, escape would have been in order to satisfy emotions and personal feelings. Socrates emphasized that disobeying the laws of Athens was unjust. He argued that obeying the laws would serve to emphasise a functionality and power of the law. If the philosopher chose to disobey the law by agreeing to Crito’s plan, then his actions harmed the city of Athens. Socrates' escape would mean that the laws of Athens had no power. It is important to understand that, as for the socratic views, the laws represented the opinion of the majority (Jowett, 15). Thus, scholar suggested that it needed a just man to respect the opinion of the majority. His decision to respect the laws of Athens was in the center of his efforts to emphasise the importance of respect toward legal system. The philosopher stated that his escape would destroy the laws and the very city of Athens. Although the law had been used unjustly, he did not dare to change the justice of these laws. Socrates' escape could present a way of avenging the whole wrong that was done to him. The philosopher was against of acting while being affected by a sense of retribution (Jowett, 15). To sum up, Cicero and Socrates stated that the law was important in ensuring justice' hegemony (Cicero, 35; Jowett, 14). The law provided a universally binding means of resolving conflicts. Socrates stated that laws provided social peace. He accepted his own death sentence to honour his contract with the authorities of Athens. The contract required the philosopher to abide by the laws of Athens. Socrates chose to obey their ruling by facing the death sentence as demanded by the laws of Athens. The arguments made by Socrates and Cicero suggested that citizens had an obligation to obey the rule of law. Obeying the laws ensured that justice prevailed in the society. According to Socrates, the laws reflected a certain type of functionality in the society. Socrates and Cicero assumed that laws played a crucial role in the society (Cicero 35; Jowett 14). Socrates believed that retaliation against the death sentence might have been translated to disregarding his obligations towards the law governing in Athens (Jowett, 17). Ultimately, Cicero and Socrates, in their various arguments, agreed that returning injustice for injustice was wrong. Socrates made an exception in the case of self-defence, whereas Cicero believed that people commited acts of injustice while being provoked by a wrongful act. It is clear that these philosophers emphasised on the importance of the state law in promoting justice. Thus, scholars proved that justice was all about people which got what they deserved. From their arguments, we can summarise that obeying the law, making moral decisions, paying up debts, facing a fair trial, resolving conflicts are acts that promote justice. These scholars discouraged usage of vengeance or revenge as a means for seeking justice. The process of making a just decision required that we ignore personal feelings and emotions that can affect one's judgements. Therefore, Cicero’s explained that respect for humanity and the laws of human society were both ways of demonstrating justice. Again, Socrates concerned that we could express justice by obeying the laws in the society and avoiding acts of retaliation. Works Cited Cicero, Marcus Tullius. “De Officiis.” constitution.org. 28 Apr. 2013. www.constitution.org/rom/de_officiis.htm. 1913 Jowett, Benjamin. “Plato’s Crito.” hn.psu.edu. 28 Apr. 2013. http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/plato/crito.pdf. 1998. Read More