Read Argument Against Chaos Found Incredible Us Return

Read Argument Against Chaos Found Incrito50blet Us Return To The Ori

Read: Argument Against Chaos, found in Crito 50b Let us return to the original text for this argument: "Tell me, Socrates, what are you intending to do? By attempting this deed, aren't you planning to do nothing other than destroy us, the laws, and the civic community, as much as you can? Or does it seem possible to you that any city where the verdicts reached have no force but are made powerless and corrupted by private citizens could continue to exist and not be in ruins?" (Crito, 50b).

Answer: 1. What are the explicit premises of this argument? 2. What are the implicit premises of these arguments? 3. How can you make the implicit premises explicit? 4. What is the conclusion of this argument? 5. Are there any weaknesses you can identify in this argument? Explain.

Read: Argument from the Spirit of the Laws, as found in Crito 54c The primary text of this argument is very short: “But as it is you leave us, if indeed you depart, having been done an injustice not by us, the laws, but by men.”

Answer: 1. How is this argument different from the “Two Wrongs Do Not Make a Right” argument? 2. What are the explicit premises of this argument? 3. What are the implicit premises of these arguments? 4. How can you make them explicit? 5. What is the conclusion of this argument? 6. Are there any weaknesses you can identify in this argument? Explain.

Paper For Above instruction

The arguments presented in Plato's "Crito" reflect profound philosophical debates about justice, civic obligation, and individual morality. The first argument, the "Argument Against Chaos," emphasizes the importance of the rule of law and cautions against individual actions that undermine societal order. The second, the "Argument from the Spirit of the Laws," underscores the significance of justice and the wrongful nature of departing from the law, even if personal injustice is perceived. This paper analyzes the explicit and implicit premises of these arguments, compares their differences, and explores their strengths and weaknesses within the framework of Socratic philosophy and legal ethics.

Analysis of the Argument Against Chaos

The explicit premises of the "Argument Against Chaos" are that if individuals disobey laws, believing they can evaluate or dismiss them based on personal judgment, the civic community will disintegrate, leading to societal chaos and ruin. Socrates’ interlocutor asserts that lawlessness cannot sustain a city, implying that laws possess an intrinsic authority that must be upheld to preserve order. The explicit premises include the idea that laws are established for the common good and that their violation therefore threatens the fabric of society.

Implicit premises involve the assumption that individuals are morally and practically obligated to obey the law regardless of personal beliefs. It presumes that societal stability depends on uniform adherence to laws and that individual disobedience inherently undermines the rule of law. These premises are implicit because Socrates does not explicitly state that law obedience is a moral duty or that individual judgment cannot justifiably override legal authority.

To make these implicit premises explicit, one would need to assert explicitly that law obedience is a moral obligation grounded in social contract theory, and that societal stability relies on such obedience. Also, the assumption that disobedience can lead to societal decay should be clarified as a necessary consequence of law violation.

The conclusion of this argument is that Socrates must accept the punishment and abide by the laws, rather than threaten societal chaos through disobedience. In the context of Socrates’ trial, it functions as a defense of civic law and order, asserting that to escape or disobey laws is to threaten the very foundation of the polis.

Weaknesses of this argument include its reliance on the assumption that laws are inherently justified and that their violation always leads to chaos. It potentially neglects individual moral responsibility to oppose unjust laws, as Socrates himself suggests in other dialogues. Moreover, it does not account for situations where laws are unjust or corrupt, raising questions about the absolute nature of legal obedience.

Analysis of the Argument from the Spirit of the Laws

The primary text of this argument emphasizes that Socrates and others have been wronged by men, not directly by the laws themselves. The difference from the "Two Wrongs" argument is that it shifts blame from individual wrongdoing to systemic or institutional injustice. Explicit premises include the idea that laws are designed for justice and that harming the laws themselves unjustly harms the social order because laws embody collective societal principles.

Implicit premises involve the belief that laws possess an autonomous moral authority distinct from human agents, and that violating laws is a form of injustice that harms society's moral fabric. It also assumes that legal statutes are generally just and that their violation constitutes an injustice regardless of individual circumstances.

To make these premises explicit, one must state that laws represent collective societal principles that must be respected, and that violating or departing from them is inherently unjust, regardless of individual grievances. This underscores that justice involves adherence to laws because they embody societal morality.

The conclusion of this argument is that Socrates’ departure would constitute an injustice to the laws, and therefore, it would be morally wrong, even if Socrates perceives himself as a victim of injustice by men. This emphasizes the moral duty to respect the law as a moral entity.

Weaknesses of this argument include potential rigidity, as it may dismiss individual moral conscience and the possibility that laws can be unjust. It assumes that laws are inherently just and that violating them always constitutes an injustice, which may neglect the complexities of moral and legal dilemmas. Additionally, it might oversimplify the relationship between laws and justice.

Comparison and Critical Reflection

Both arguments affirm the importance of law and order but differ in their response to injustice. The "Chaos" argument warns against individual disobedience that can threaten societal stability, whereas the "Spirit of the Laws" emphasizes that disrespecting laws constitutes an injustice regardless of individual circumstances.

Critically, both arguments are rooted in the assumption that laws are inherently moral and justified, which can be limiting. Socrates’ stance in the dialogues suggests a nuanced view where unjust laws require moral resistance, complicating these arguments’ premises. Furthermore, their weaknesses reveal tensions between legal authority, moral conscience, and justice, issues still debated in contemporary legal philosophy (Dworkin, 1977; Rawls, 1971).

In conclusion, analyzing these arguments reveals the philosophical challenges of balancing obedience to law with moral justice. They illustrate the enduring tension between societal order and individual morality, a theme central to Socratic and legal philosophy.

References

• Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking Rights Seriously. Harvard University Press.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Cohen, G. A. (1989). On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice. Ethics, 99(4), 906–944.
• O’Neill, O. (2000). Towards Justice and Virtue: A Constructivist Account. Cambridge University Press.
• Scanlon, T. (2003). The Difficulty of Tolerance. Cambridge University Press.
• Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Finnis, J. (2011). Natural Law and Natural Rights. Oxford University Press.
• MacIntyre, A. (2007). After Virtue. University of Notre Dame Press.
• Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and Human Development. Cambridge University Press.
• Luban, D. (2004). Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility. Routledge.