However Xenophon’s view is not a totally fair one, considering his past military experiences with Spartans, as well as the fact that he was not a Spartan citizen and therefore only knew the official laws laid out to him. The ancient Greeks believed that the world was created perfect, and that every change made it a little worse. This made conservatism fundamental in preventing decay in the world. The Spartans therefore found it essential to live by the laws, which were mainly military based, that the legendary Lycurgus had laid out for them in the first half of the 7th Century. Unlike other Greek states, who were much less rotated around the military and had women responsible for making clothes, the Spartans left that duty for the slave women, so that the higher class women could concentrate on physical training just as much as the men did.
Jefferson states his disagreements with James Madison when he says, “Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government.” (Document A). As the years went on James Madison and Thomas Jefferson started to see eye to eye. Jefferson and the Jeffersonian Republicans believed that the authority of the federal government should be based on a strict constitution. Americans should follow every rule stated in the constitution and to obey them. Jefferson stated that, “ I consider the government of the United States as interdicted the constitution.” (Document B).
There are so many conflicting theories that it makes it almost impossible to choose what the moral thing to do would be. In his essay, Jamieson doesn’t say that he’ll solve the problems of moral theory but he’ll discuss them, the nature of moral theory and some questions of method. In the first part of his essay Jamieson talks about the nature of moral theories. There are two approaches to making a moral theory; Top-Down system (Dominant conception) or Bottom-up system (Anti-theorist). The dominant conception of moral theories suggests they are abstract structures that sort actions, agents and outcomes into categories.
Because of this, I believe Socrates was reserved to his fate and Prince Ajura reserved himself to battle. If we lived under the strict tenants of Socrates’ daimonion you could imagine that everything you did was on the “right” path until a divine feeling told you otherwise, while Krishna advises that when we give up our ego and materialism we can walk the realm of the divine. How one ultimately decides to live their lives is up to them, but these ancient figures were certainly believed they were moved by something
During the course of reading Euthyphro, the idea of doing what is right became the overall goal for what Socrates was trying to argue. Though to one such as myself, I would easily define it as doing what is morally good according to a just law. However, after reading this dialogue, there would seem to be many loop-holes that could be argued against my understanding. The whole dialogue of this section concerns how a man named Euthyphro is supposed proceed against his father in civil court, and how Socrates see's this as morally wrong. How he asserts his disposition is through asking Euthyphro to give his reasoning behind his actions, and constantly disagreeing with him through more questions which lead into more universal idea's such as
1. Essay Read the following quotation: The constitution is work of many interpretations. The legal system have their interpretation, and so does scholars and the general public. However, the true meaning of the Constitution seems to get lost in the mix of other people’s understanding of it, “The emphasis on historical and theoretical precision sometimes leads us to forget that the Constitution was the work of statesmen and politicians, not philosophers and theorists." (Ivers.
His account of this war was based on his personal experiences and the statements of eyewitnesses, and continues to be recognized as an important work of political theory. There are some who downplay its importance, citing that it does not take into account the ability of man to change and become better human beings. However, history has borne out that human nature is not able to be completely reshaped and therefore, Thucydides reasoning that those with all of the power will continue to promote self-interest and ignore justice can be
Is what Socrates says in Crito about the obligation to obey the laws inconsistent with what he says in Apology? In Crito, Socrates’ view of one’s obligation to obey the state-mandated law was profoundly inconsistent against the view he fervently expressed in his defense in Apology, in which he argued that divine law is inherently superior to the law created by men. These two opposing interpretations are problematic and largely contradicting and therefore could not be reconciled given by the strong objections he presented in Apology and throughout his defense and the necessity to obey the city laws in Crito. This paper would elucidate his inconsistent views in Crito and Apology and argue in which law should he follow given his stance on what’s constitute piety and harm. “Men of Athens, I am grateful and I am your friend, but I will obey the god rather than you, and as long as I draw breath, I shall not cease to practice philosophy (Apology, 29d).” He made an emphatic hierarchical distinction between these two laws in which he argued that divine law should dictate one’s moral compass and must take precedence over the laws mandated by men.
Phil 115 March 4, 2013 Apology and Euthyphro After Socrates claimed that he was not like Sophists or Presocratics, he answers the question as to what led him to make his so-called false accusations? He answered by explaining that he had developed a reputation of wisdom, but a type that was limited and human based. He added that it was not the kind of wisdom that gave him the power to enforce his beliefs on matters associated with the Sophists and the Presocratics. Socrates explained that he gained his reputation by a prophecy given by the Oracle at Delphi to his friend Chaerephon. Socrates told the tale of how Chaerephon had gone to the oracle and asked as to whether or not there was one wiser than Socrates, to which the Oracle replied, no.
Dr. Lint has worked at the department of political science in Vanderbilt University and is hence highly experienced in the issues of international law and its applications. Alexander provides various accounts including legislations to look at when focusing on abuse of human right to life. He says it is also important to note that in regards to ‘right to life’ there are several legislations that while protecting individual’s right to life, gives exceptions under which someone can lose the right to life. The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms’ (ECHR) article number two holds that “Everyone rights to life shall be protected by law” (Brian 2002). This means that the article provision is not an absolute law in itself but a right that is subject to several other exceptions.