He starts off by saying that concerning punishment for one who has committed murder, there would be no difference of opinion among the gods about that (Plato, 7). In response, Socrates tells that regarding men, there are sometimes when a person may argue for a murderer to be let off (8). He tells of when someone has done wrong, he will not admit his guilt, but when it comes to the idea of doing wrong, they would they that the doer should be punished (8). And since this applies to man, he also states the same go for the gods as well, for they to have quarrels among themselves concerning whether someone has wronged another, and yet they may seem to have the same opinion about the evil-doer should not go unpunished, the one who has committed the act may not admit to his crime (8). And still, some may also see the crime as just or unjust, and not everyone will have the same opinion about the matter (8).
Socrates is shocked that Euthyphro would do such a thing, and remarks that Euthyphro must be “an extraordinary man, and have great strides in wisdom” to make such a charge against his father. Socrates also suggests that Euthyphro’s father must have killed a relative for Euthyphro to even think of charging him (para. 18-32). Euthyphro agrees with Socrates flattery, but, in contrary to Socrates’s assumption, the murdered man was not a relative. Euthyphro remarks that it does not matter who was murdered, only if the murdered man has been “justly slain.” He believes that his father has committed an act which “pollutes” his family, and the only way he can “cleanse” his family is bringing his father to court (para.
Ironically though, Socrates was put to death because of some of his thoughts. Apparently, a too examined life was also not worth living through the eyes of his executioner(s). This shows a strong tie to religion and the limiting factors of Greek civilization. Despite all the ostracizing, philosophy was destined to expand. Aristotle was one of the many who continued the tradition.
Even though they are thankful for Mr. Lee’s generosity they strive to hide their appreciation in order to keep him from feeling superior. They believe boasting leads to pride that lead to killing thus their badmouthing can "cool his heart and make him gentle" (Lee 17). In this great article, “Eating
This staple of his beliefs is why he doesn't fear death, but in fact looks forward to it. By escaping he is committing an unjust act against the state, and committing unjust acts ruins the soul. With a ruined soul there is no point in living life as the soul is the only important thing, not the body. Therefore the most important thing is not only living life, but living a just life. While Socrates arguments may be sound in his opinion, I'm not sure if I agree with them.
For one reason owning private property breaks down the state of equity where no one person as more than another. And if mankind has a right to their own preservation do they need the consent of every man in order to appropriate, can he not enclose property without the consent of his fellow commoners. But when God gave man reason to make to make use of nature to the best advantages of life and convenience that made reason for the use and need of private property, therefore not needing the consent of his fellow commoners. If humans fail to use nature to the best advantage we as humans are committing a sin. Even if the state of equity is broken down it is up to each individual to inquire what he needs it is not up to all of mankind to provide for each other.
He did not want to be remembered as a friend of the “devil” he didn’t want to have a blackened name. John wanted to be remembered as the man who gave his soul to protect his family and friends. Signing his name would mean he would be remembered for the bad not the good, John did not want his children living in humiliation, John preferred not to live rather than live with a blackened name. By handing his soul over Proctor believed he would regained his goodness, all the good left in him was his name, and he believed that this was the only thing he should leave behind. Reverend Parris was the opposite to John Proctor, he also feared for his name but not in the same way.
Caesar's own personality was a key role to his own death making him as guilty as everyone else. If Caesar was a caring ruler he might have survived his assassination but unfortunately he was the stereotypical leader and only cared for the good of himself. Even though the empire was stopped before Caesar could rule it, the republic did not last much longer anyway. Caesar's death was not much of an effect on Rome but nonetheless it was Caesars fault. Caesar was arrogant, hubris and full of pride.
Austin Main Mr. Borges Philosophy of Ethics February 20, 2012 Report on Book II of The Republic by Plato In Book II of Plato’s The Republic, the Socrates points out the way he sees fit in the concepts of justice. He believes solely that he is correct and no longer wants to make due of the discussion, but Glaucon explains his theories about the three classes of levels of goodness. The first level of goodness, being those things we only find good in their consequences. These things could be studying, investing in stock markets, mowing the lawn, or impregnating your wife. The second level of goodness consists of those things that we find pleasure in themselves.
He tries to convince Socrates that escape would be easy to manage and that his friends and family would be free from harm. However, Socrates is really contemplating whether the decision to pay the guards off to allow him to escape is moral and right. I think this is a fair argument on both parts. I think it would take a toll on the friends and family of both parties if they were to aid in Socrates escape. However, I think paying off the guards would cause just as much hardship on Socrates and would challenge everything that he has stood