Analysis of Crito Dialogues by Plato - Assignment Example

Crito There were always contradictory issues tat were not easy to resolve and to discuss. Speaking on ethical issues, theyusually involve some kind of a confrontation of opposing interests. When the parties opinions and decisions come into a conflict, there are always options that determine the outcomes. Ethical dilemmas are based on the consideration of what moral just is. In Crito Socrates has a conversation with his fried Crito who intends to take him away of death; he makes attempts to persuade him to leave the prison and to save himself. Socrates backs his denial with a multitude of sound questions so that Crito realizes the presuppositions that have lead Socrates to such kind of the decision. Socrates says: “Tell me, then, whether you agree and assent to me first principle, that neither injury nor retaliation, nor warding off evil by evil is ever right.” Socrates says that doing unjust is never appropriate – even repaying for some abusive acts. Man has always act just; never can he do evil, even suffering does not permit to act evil and unjust. The major premise is that man ought never act unjustly. The second is that man has an obligation to abide by the judgments of the state and not to seek individual exceptions to the law. That is why Socrates decides to abide the state and not to escape to save himself. I support his perspective, as if everyone acted like that, the world would be much better. Objection. Regarding the first premise that states that man ought never act unjustly, people may oppose such statement as there are many unfair cases, in which, they believe, they can respond evil with another evil. Or a greater one. History traces many lines when power and violence decided the way the world developed; there are achievements built on blood and bones (for example, the Great Wall), deceptions solved the wars – yet they began them widely. Even some sacred Hindu texts say it is just to revenge. People often think being kind is not beneficial; somebody may use it for own profit. Being clever and strategic is more valued nowadays. It does not mean people are evil; just they observe always the possibility some other people may deceive or betray them. In case they face injustice and evil, they often think that it is appropriate and permitted to act accordingly – evil and unjust. They may believe such behaviors would put an end to misbehavior. But actually, usually such approach enhance evil and hatred and raise the gap that emphasizes the conflict between just and unjust, good and evil. Replay. I support Socrates perspective as I believe there are two approaches that are different in their core. One is about being a consequence, while another is being a reason. First means that person is consciously or (more often) unconsciously reacts accordingly to the situation provided. They accept no responsibility or even usually do not consider the consequence their actions will lead to. They might believe that if they were abused, they have the whole right to act accordingly – which often leads to ruination. It does not lead to any good. I cannot say they is no way ruination can be needed – it is required really sometimes as it provides place for new. But actually, being conscious on the outcomes the action imposes means regulating own behavior accordingly to the free will – moral aspect, not reactive emotional reactions or egoistic persuasions. Acting just imposes also not repaying injustice with injustice, evil with evil – even when they cause severe suffering it is not the case; also carrying out just deeds and agreements. Regarding the second premise oblection, people may say that when the laws are unjust, there is no need to adhere them. They may harm own interests but support the states ones. There are wise rulers, yet there are unjust rulers – greedy or egoistic. People, seeing injustice try to circumvent the law to support own right and benefits – when the state is evidently not follows the same goal. Nowadays the initial goal of the state is to enable joint development for the greater good for everyone. Thus, state serves its people – even though exploiting them. But widely the top only has access to better life conditions. They define the decisions and development that takes place. People may be angry and do nothing – yet they may confront or circumvent some aspects of currently available law to secure own rights and life. Replay for this objection I would start with the point that even the law was not fair, people have to abide them. Thus it is evident that law, which must be adhered by all, has to be universal and applicable to everyone – this is inevitable condition for the state to survive. In case it cannot cover all the issues, it cannot be acknowledged as universal. Retaliating against the state harms the state and thus is doing evil to the state. Individual exceptions to the laws harm and undermine the states authority. Each individual makes an agreement with the state to abide by its judgments. Thus, such agreement is a just mutual transaction of giving and taking. Doing evil to the state even when the state does evil to a person ought not to be done. Searching for individual exceptions is not just. Refusal to abide by the judgments imposed by the state is equal to breaking a just agreement. All has to be made based on agreements – ruining them is unjust. Agreement means an obligation to adhere to the agreed norms and laws. Socrates supports ethically right choices – even if they lead to own death. Behind this his answer many doctrines and perspectives might be attached. For example, Utilitarianism that states that in case the outcomes lead to the greater good for the greater amounts of people, such deed is ethically right. Socrates himself could not betray own views. There is always a conflict of interests within any type of the conflict. They usually may be of different scale. Sometimes it is a conflict of the two peoples interests; sometimes it is a fight of a human and the larger system – as state. Even more, personal interests may confront with the higher level ideas – like ethical aspects that concern more the soul. Can a human be after betrayal of own core essential values? The priorities have to be set accordingly. Significance and modern implementation may be seen easily. Modern society lacks ethical decisions and just laws. There are laws for common people – which appear to be not that strict laws for higher officials, for examples. Law implies there is no exceptions. It is not just that political figures have power not to rule to increase prosperity of the state but to fulfill own welfare. Also, searching for the ways to outflank the law leads to the matter laws become stricter. For example, when some people illegally hide their profits and avoid paying taxes, government may increase taxes for those who pay them. It becomes even more unjust. I think every person has to start with own responsibility. I acknowledge it is difficult, yet always hardly possible to change the world and its order. In case consistent changes would take place, it would definitely enhance the society and existing order. In case laws would be revised and provide fair and just agreements, people would more gladly accept and adhere them. Less the intend to decline the law, the better the state may be. Thus, summing up, understanding the underlying reasons and abiding the law will help to improve the existing system. References “Crito,” The Dialogues of Plato, trans. B. Jowett, Vol. 1, 3rd ed. (1871). New York: Random House. Read More