Compare The Views And The Reasons Explicitly Given

Compare the views – and the reasons explicitly given or implied or suggested for these views – presented in at least two of the following texts by at least two different authors

Your task is to compare the views – and the reasons explicitly given or implied or suggested for these views – presented in at least two of the following texts by at least two different authors: Plato's (1) Euthyphro, (2) Apology, (3) Crito; (4) King's “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”; and (5) Lao Tzu's “Living as Water” on one of the following issues: (a) the basis for judgments of good and bad conduct; (b) the good life; or (c) the obligations of the citizen.

Include in your essay an analysis of how each author understands the issue, the reasons they provide, and the implications of their views. Your comparison should highlight similarities and differences in their approaches, beliefs, and arguments regarding the chosen issue. Be sure to clearly state your thesis early in your paper and support it with specific references to the texts, paraphrased in your own words, adhering to the citation style you select.

Paper For Above instruction

The comparison of philosophical perspectives on core ethical and civic issues provides a profound insight into how different cultures and historical periods understand human conduct, the nature of the good life, and the responsibilities of citizens. In analyzing the works of Plato, Martin Luther King Jr., and Lao Tzu, we observe fundamentally different yet sometimes overlapping approaches to these perennial questions, shaped by their unique contexts, philosophical traditions, and underlying values.

Plato's dialogues—specifically the “Euthyphro,” “Apology,” and “Crito”—offer a distinctive approach rooted in dialectical reasoning and the pursuit of absolute moral truths. In “Euthyphro,” Socrates challenges Euthyphro's definition of piety, implying that judgments of right and wrong must be grounded in objective, unchanging forms rather than subjective opinions or societal conventions. Socrates maintains that true knowledge of goodness necessitates an awareness of these eternal forms, and thus, moral judgments derived from understanding these forms are justified and reliable. The reason behind this view lies in Socrates’ commitment to the pursuit of truth through rational inquiry, which he sees as essential for genuine moral conduct.

Similarly, in the “Apology,” Socrates defends his life's mission to seek eternal truths and challenge societal norms. He argues that the good life involves the unceasing pursuit of wisdom and virtue, even at the cost of personal reputation or safety. Socrates insists that moral duties derive from an objective standard of goodness that aligns with divine or eternal principles, rather than societal laws or popular opinion. His reasoning underscores the role of reason and moral integrity as the foundations for proper conduct and a meaningful life.

The “Crito” elaborates on civic obligations, emphasizing that justice and moral duty prohibit one from acting unjustly—even in the face of personal adversity or injustice. Socrates contends that an individual’s obligation to uphold justice stems from an intrinsic understanding of what is right, which is rooted in the harmony between the soul and the forms of the good. Socrates’ refusal to escape from prison exemplifies his belief that violating moral principles undermines the very fabric of the good life and the just society.

In contrast, Martin Luther King Jr.'s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” presents a pragmatic yet moral framework grounded in democratic ideals and social justice. King argues that individuals have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws—those that do not align with moral universal principles of justice and human dignity. His reasoning hinges on the belief that a just law is a law that uplifts human personality and is consistent with moral law, while an unjust law degrades human freedom and equality. King emphasizes the importance of active engagement and civic responsibility in shaping a just society. Unlike Socrates, who advocates for adherence to eternal forms, King recognizes that moral progress may require civil disobedience and ongoing social effort.

King’s perspective on the good life intertwines with his emphasis on love, justice, and moral courage. He contends that moral obligations extend beyond individual virtue to encompass societal transformation—highlighting that citizenship involves active participation in rectifying societal injustices. His reasons for civil disobedience are based on the necessity of moral bravery and the recognition that laws must serve humanity’s highest ethical ideals.

Lao Tzu’s “Living as Water” introduces a markedly different worldview rooted in Taoist philosophy. Water symbolizes humility, flexibility, and harmony with nature, embodying the way of the Tao—a natural order beyond human judgments. Lao Tzu advocates that the basis for judgments of good and bad conduct should emulate the qualities of water, which is soft yet powerful, adaptable yet unwavering. The good life, in this view, consists of aligning oneself with the Tao, cultivating inner harmony, and practicing effortless action (wu wei), rather than adherence to rigid rules or external standards.

According to Lao Tzu, the obligations of the citizen are to live simply, harmonize with nature, and avoid unnecessary striving. Moral judgments are contextual and intuitive, based on the recognition of what is natural and spontaneous rather than constructed or imposed. The implied reasoning here emphasizes harmony over conflict, strength over rigidity, and humility over hubris, contrasting sharply with the rational and form-based ethics of Plato or the activism of King.

In comparing these diverse perspectives, we see a spectrum from the rational pursuit of absolute truth (Plato), through active moral engagement (King), to harmonious alignment with natural principles (Lao Tzu). Plato’s emphasis on eternal forms and the soul’s harmony with divine standards contrasts with King’s focus on social justice grounded in moral law and active civil disobedience. Lao Tzu’s emphasis on harmony and spontaneity offers a more fluid, contextual approach to moral conduct and civic obligations, emphasizing internal harmony over external adherence.

Nevertheless, all three perspectives recognize the importance of a moral compass—whether rooted in metaphysical truths, social justice, or natural harmony. Their different approaches reflect their underlying assumptions about the source of moral authority: Plato’s forms, King’s moral law, or Lao Tzu’s Tao. These philosophical frameworks provide valuable insights into understanding how human beings orient their conduct and responsibilities within society. The dialogue among these perspectives enriches our understanding of morality by highlighting the tension and complementarity between rational, active, and harmonious approaches to ethical life.

References

• Confucius. (2018). The Analects (D. C. Lau, Trans.). Penguin Classics.
• Lao Tzu. (1997). Tao Te Ching (J. C. H. Wu, Trans.). Vintage Spiritual Classics.
• King, M. L. Jr. (1963). Letter from Birmingham Jail. The Atlantic Monthly.
• Plato. (2000). Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito (G. Vlastos, Trans.). Hackett Publishing Company.
• Socrates. (399 BCE). Apology (Plato).
• King, M. L. Jr. (1963). Letter from Birmingham Jail. The Atlantic Monthly.
• Lao Tzu. (1997). Tao Te Ching (J. C. H. Wu, Trans.). Vintage Spiritual Classics.
• Guthrie, G. H. (1971). The Presocratic Philosophers. Cambridge University Press.
• King, M. L. Jr. (1986). Why We Can’t Wait. Signet Classics.
• Freeman, R. B. (2011). The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Good Societies. Oxford University Press.