My Paper

On 4/23/15, Dylan Ford <footballmania@gmail.com> wrote:
> You asked for it... Not my best work. My professor encourages shorter and
> more direct writing. He says that in Philosophy that is the way people
> write. Almost short and choppy, and it is weird for me not to write lengthy
> and more formally.
>
Good presentation.
In Athens, back in the day of Socrates, the Citizens of Athens made
the rules. The rules were set by the Citizens, to regulate life among
the Citizens. Non Citizens and Slaves had no say in establishing the
rules, but they had to live by them.
So what if you were not a Citizen of Athens, but you were a Free Man,
a merchant earning your living by selling figs to the Citizens, and
you broke a rule? Would you be bound to obey the rules even if it
meant you would die? But you had no say in making rules that served
the Citizens, and in fact, the rule you broke actually made life
difficult for you. Since you broke a rule that was an imposition to
you, could you not turn around and escape without impacting those who
put the rule in place?

It seems to me that the people breaking the rules in America, are
those people who feel disenfranchised. They feel cut off from the
government of the Ruling Class, and have no government of their own to
turn to.
Suppose you were in a protest rally. The police come along and order
you to break up. You protest, saying you have the right to assemble.
After some discussion, the cop cuffs you and tosses you in the clink.
But while you are sitting there, gathering dust, an error is made that
could allow you to walk away, a free man. Would you be breaking
another rule? Even though you were detained by a government that
ignored it's rules when they got in the way of the Ruling Class?

This bug has really got to me, I'm falling asleep with my fingers on
the computer keyboard. Better close for now. Oh yes, my sister came
down with the same thing.



>
> Dylan Ford
> PHIL 101
> Essay #1
> April 23, 2015
> Socrates Persuade or Obey Argument
> The Crito, begins with Socrates, who is in jail awaiting his death
> sentence, having a conversation with Crito, one of Socrates' closest
> friends. Crito is attempting to persuade Socrates to escape from prison, to
> which Socrates refuses. Crito states: "I do not think that what you are
> doing is just" (Plato 45c). He argues that a courageous man would rise up
> and fight against being unjustly imprisoned. Socrates replies: "I am eager
> to examine [this argument] together" (Plato 46d). Socrates begins his
> examination by having an imaginary conversation with the Laws in which the
> Laws question Socrates about his potential escape. Through his
> personification of the Laws, Socrates makes an effective argument with
> several strong points for him to remain in prison.
> Before examining the argument Crito and Socrates come to an agreement on
> two key moral ideas. Firstly, they agree: "wrongdoing or injustice is in
> every way harmful and shameful to the wrongdoer" (Plato 49b). Socrates
> also adds that one should not harm or wrong another in revenge or
> retaliation. Secondly, they agree that when you have a just agreement you
> should fulfill that agreement. Not fulfilling it harms and wrongs the one
> you had an agreement with. They acknowledge: "I know that only a few people
> hold this view" and "there is no common ground between those who hold this
> view and those who do not" (Plato 49d). These views set a very high moral
> standard to which they both lived by.
> The Laws begin their examination of Socrates by asking if he is intending
> to destroy the city. They point out a city in which citizens do not have to
> follow the verdicts of their courts undermines the laws of the state and
> would ultimately lead to anarchy. Socrates defends: "The city wronged me
> and its decision was not right." (Plato 50c). Regardless of the trial's
> verdict they both agreed that wrongdoing of any kind or in retaliation was
> against their values. If Socrates escaped he would be undermining the Laws
> and by consequence wronging the citizens of Athens.
> The Laws proceed to point out that their relationship is not one of equals
> where "whatever we do to you it is right for you to do to us?" (Plato 50e).
> Their relationship is more of like father and child or master and slave, a
> relationship not of equal rights. In our own society today this holds true,
> sometimes innocent people go to jail and the system is far larger than any
> one individual. Socrates speaks of this relationship as an agreement
> reached between citizens and the laws of the State.
> This is a hypothetical agreement between the laws of a state and its'
> citizens in which no actual contract is ever signed or given oath to.
> However, this is a necessary contract with in all civilized societies that
> allows us to maintain civil order. In these agreements citizens, in
> general, do not as much agree to follow all laws as much as they consent to
> accept the punishments if found guilty of breaking these laws. The Laws ask
> about the hypothetical agreement: "whether we speak the truth when we say
> that you agreed... to live in accordance with us." (Plato 52d). Together
> Crito and Socrates come to the conclusion that they had entered an
> agreement with the laws of the state.
> The Laws then precede to point out that if one did not like this agreement
> there are no laws that prevent him from moving to a new city of his choice.
> They insist that Socrates could have left in his seventy years prior to his
> trial. Socrates in personifying the Laws does not take into account the
> extreme difficulty and challenges of a citizen moving to another city. In
> our world today it is very challenging to legally move and attain
> citizenship in another country. However, in Socrates era, someone
> especially a poor individual with little to no belongings would only have
> to attain the fare needed for transportation. Usually only men born to that
> polis were allowed to be citizens, and therefore people did not need to
> worry as much about legally applying to live in a new city. Crito in his
> conversations with Socrates spoke of his friends in a new city who would
> have gladly taken in Socrates. In Socrates' situation moving to a new city
> would have been easier than it is today. The Laws specify because he chose
> not leave he must now stick to the agreement and stay in prison.
> The Laws also emphasize that if he had wished to leave instead of facing
> death, Socrates "[at his trial he] could have assessed your penalty at
> exile if you wished, and you are now attempting to do against the city's
> wishes what you could then have done with her consent." (Plato 52c).
> However, Socrates had said he would choose "death in preference to exile"
> (Plato 52d). The laws also insist that if he chose to flee now not only
> would his friends be subject to punishment and shame but also every other
> city would be suspicious of him. If Socrates fled, citizens would believe
> that they made the right verdict, for someone who escapes from prison is
> just as capable of corrupting the young and not believing in the State's
> Gods. The Laws point out some potential consequences and that he would be
> surrendering his own values if Socrates escaped. This makes two strong
> arguments for him to remain in prison.
> The Laws claim because he remained in Athens he had entered into an
> agreement with the laws of the state in which he must either persuade or
> obey the laws of the state. Being that Socrates was a citizen of Athens, if
> he found a law to be unjust or wanted to make a new one he could have
> chosen to participate in public assembly. The public assembly was in charge
> of changing the laws. Socrates never chose to leave the city and he chose
> to never participate in a public assembly. Therefore, the Laws argue he
> must obey the laws as they are set by the citizens of Athens.
> In Athenian government, to change an unjust law, allowed direct citizen
> involvement at the public assembly. In more modern forms of government
> citizens have representation instead of direct involvement. This is chiefly
> due to the fact that Athenian government was set up to govern just one city
> while modern governments reach across the globe. For modern governments
> have direct citizen involvement would be impossible. The easiness to
> challenge an unjust law is why Socrates' persuade or obey argument
> considers all law breaking to be wrongful and does not address purposeful
> civil disobedience. Purposeful civil disobedience is used throughout
> history to draw the attention of representatives toward unjust laws. In
> Socrates situation, if he found a law unjust he could have taken an active
> role through public assembly to change the law. The laws were made by the
> citizens and therefore would have had the majority's best interests in
> mind. This meant that to break a law was potentially harming the Athenian
> citizens. Socrates views this as a wrong doing meaning all law breaking was
> wrongful.
> The Laws argue the violations of the agreement making many points for
> Socrates to remain in jail. The Laws insist that Socrates would be
> forfeiting his two key moral ideas. In order to escape Socrates would have
> to break the agreement, and he would be willfully wrongdoing and harming
> others. Through his self-argument with the Laws Socrates successfully
> provides many reasons why he should remain imprisoned while also
> successfully defending and addressing potential problems.
>