The Consistency of Socrates In the books the Apology and the Crito, Socrates leaps back and forth pertaining the issue of whether or not laws should always be abided by. A tension has formed from readers questioning Socrates indecisiveness on the matter. This tension created can help be brought to rest after closely reviewing what Socrates is really saying. Throughout the texts, he makes a firm claim that it is important to accept the consequences dealt by the laws when perceived as disobeyed. But also that it is of equal importance to justify one’s actions when thought of doing nothing wrong.
This will involve me to not sound threatening to Bill by being warm and kind without sounding like I am pretending to this way. Being thoughtful, validate his feelings, give up information about myself so he will know that I identify with him and that I do not have a machine type personality. Finally, I will need to manage expectations. Regardless of the situation, whether it is an altruistic intention or not, there is an agenda. The individuals in life that are able to either mask their agenda or shift the agenda to something altruistic will have great success at building
“Apology” February 20, 2013 As I read the Apology written by Plato I noticed that Socrates makes his defense in a question and answer type of structure. He is very wise as to asking the right questions. He tries to make Meletos answer his questions as it will prove Socrates defense later. Socrates tries to make Meletos contradict himself and therefore, the contradictions are his defense. For instance, Socrates asks “Do not the good do their neighbors well, and the bad do them evil?
Mustapha Mond tries to make John realize that society in the World State is better off without changes. Mustapha Mond claims “[society] is well off; they’re safe; they’re never ill, they’re not afraid of death,” his statement puts him at odds with what John believes to be an ideal society. Mustapha Mond tries to further enhance his argument by exclaiming how soma is available, should anything go wrong. However, the very irony of soma being available as a back-up plan for any potential mishaps, is in the fact of the possibilities of those potential mishaps occurring in a ‘perfect’ society. Thus, there must be forms of imperfections occurring in the World State.
And here again, we see that if people listen to their conscience, and not to what society want them to believe is good, there will be some beneficial changes. In Civil disobedience, the author proved again that morality, as well as conscience plays an important role. Thoreau argued “It has been truly said, that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience." By this, he too wanted to show that individual can take actions at any time without been influenced because of their own conscience of what is good or bad. By voicing out his conscience, individual will proved his uniqueness.
Then Socrates states that the matter is finding who the wrongdoer is rather than how he must be punished. Ruthermore, the two agree that what gods hate is unpious and what they love is pious. Again, Socrates turns the discussion around and claims (statement on page 14,
Euthyphro In the story Euthyphro by Plato, epistemology plays a huge role. Socrates looks to Euthyphro because of his wisdom on piety and impiety and for the reason that the knowledge that he obtain from Euthyphro would help him fight his case for impiety brought upon by Meletus. Socrates and Euthyphro goes into great depths of questioning and answering which turns to views of being holy and satisfying the Gods. Euthyphro provides an example along with different ways in which to explain piety to Socrates. All attempts to explain piety comes with more unanswered questions to Socrates thus leaving him with more questions to the definite definition of piety.
Jefferson says, “We hold these truths to be self-evidence, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” (Jefferson, 80). He states how having these natural rights mean happiness to the citizens. We were created to use our ability to reach what we desire happiness should be. In “The Aim of Man” Aristotle has his own views when it comes to material and spiritual happiness. Aristotle argues that material is what an object consist of and this matter we could not live without.
The principle of utility also advocates that, the correctness or incorrectness of a deed is dependent on the ability for the action to lead to joy or sadness. If an action aims at supporting pleasure and preventing pain, then it rhymes to this principle, and it is morally right. On the contrary, if it does not aim at promoting happiness or preventing pain, then it does not match to the principle of utility, and it is morally incorrect. This principle is argued to be the morally correct principle of deeds at all situations. The principle of utility continually states that morally right actions produce happiness for all the affected people whose concerns are involved in the picture.
Kropotkin by opposite stressed the more chances of a "mutual aid" and working together. This tendency for common mutual aid help high-lights the possible state of a natural order and act without conscious thought, harmony making a point of that the state is unnecessary as well as wrong-doing. all together person for living without government's do not be was dependent on upon things taken as certain about to do with man nature by oneself. They also emphasize that good Ethics of certain grouping deeply rooted ways of acting, of interest ones that be a mother to working together and grouping acting together and keep self- interest and competition at bay. For an altogether persons for living without government, common owner-ship is the grouping and of money and a good base for a peaceful, hard to move and in-harmony, yet stateless society, especially in the Case of