While some make an effort to escape jail when they are imprisoned for a offense, Socrates argued for his imprisonment. Socrates provides Crito with three known reasons for staying in jail, Principle of Filial Piety, Principle of Fidelity and Non-Malificence debate. For the purpose of my argument, I'll show the way the Principle of Fidelity and Basic principle of Filial Piety are flawed arguments. In this paper I will format arguments pointed out in Taking Privileges Seriously by Ronald Dworkin in order showing why Socrates should break free from jail.
For the Rule of Fidelity, Socrates provides two premises and a summary. In his first premise he argues that because he continued to be in the city of Athens and did not challenge its laws, it constitutes an contract to abide by its laws and regulations (Rodde 23 Jan. 2013). In his second premise he expresses that as citizens, we ought to abide by our contracts (Rodde 23 Jan. 2013). Thus, if he escapes from jail, he'll break the law, therefore, he should not escape from jail (Rodde 23 Jan. 2013). However, I argue that the Fidelity Principle argument is not a fair one on the foundation that this assumes that whatever the laws of your country, if you live in the world you must abide by the society's regulations, thus agreeing to the regulations as being 'just' laws and regulations.
Furthermore, the federal government is appointed and chosen by the majority guideline and regulates its regulations for its people. When there's a relationship built between the state and its citizens, an automatic agreement occurs. As the people have a duty to the state, the state also offers someone to its people of treating them justly under the law. Socrates' strongest debate is the Basic principle of Fidelity as he argues that people must keep our offers (Plato 29-30). Nonetheless, Socrates admits that he was put in jail on wrong conditions (Plato 29-30). The wrong imprisonment automatically voids the arrangement that Socrates has with the state. Because the point out broke trust with Socrates by unjustly accusing and sentencing him, why then could it be okay for Socrates to break faith with them? Dworkin argues, "in practice, the federal government will have the final word on what an individual's rights arebut that does not mean that the government's view is always the right view" (Dworkin 34). Within this word, Dworkin argues that there is a notable difference between moral privileges and rights which although we could in an agreement with a authorities, our own individual rights shouldn't be ignored.
By Socrates keeping his end of the guarantee to the federal government, he assumes that the government ought to be moral and this the government serves for its people: "he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the state, but still remains, has got into into an implied deal that he will do even as commend him, and who he disobeys us is, once we maintain, thrice incorrect" (Plato 30). Here Socrates outlines the rules layed out by the state to its people and he argues how residents must follow those guidelines, however, if the state is an unjust express, should one still follow its guidelines? Dworkin amazingly shows how an act such as Socrates' based on the Fidelity Principle ignores ones moral protection under the law as he argues that an individual who is convinced that the government's view is always the 'right' view "must assume that men and women have only such moral privileges as government chooses to grand which means that they haven't any moral rights whatsoever" (Dworkin 34). Here Dworkin explains that by ignoring our moral rights and allowing the state of hawaii to assign moral rights, we have no rights in any way. Therefore, as people have commitments that they must meet to its federal government, the federal government has responsibilities that they must fulfill. Their state broke the responsibilities that they had to Socrates by imprisoning and performing him on bogus accusations, this also demonstrating that regulations was flawed and unjust. However, we ought to not disregard Socrates' argument that even though the express broke fidelity with regulations that does not imply that he should break trust with the law. While in discussion with Crito, Socrates clarifies that he is a man of his phrase (Plato 29), however, he fails to mention that he is binding himself to an unjust legislations. This further questioning the legitimacy of the Concept of Fidelity as it seems to firmly support some promises while ignoring others.
Socrates' second debate is the Process of Filial Piety. Socrates' first idea for the argument is that the partnership between a state and a resident is comparable to the partnership between a father or mother and a kid (Plato 29-30). The second premise states that a child ought to follow his/her parents; therefore, a citizen ought to obey their state (Rodde 23 Jan. 2013). However, the Filial Piety is a flawed rule because it is an argument from analogy. Analogies always fail because two features can't ever be exactly indistinguishable. Yet, Socrates assumes that parents' purchases are always the 'right' orders. Socrates disregards the idea of 'problem' and poses the idea of 'perfectibility' on a job that never can be perfect. The idea of 'perfectibility' becomes more problematic when Socrates compares the relationship of a citizen and its express to a child and its father or mother: "in disobeying us he is disobeying his parentswe will be the creators of his education" (Plato 30). Here Socrates points out that the control their state has over his life is comparable to the control that parents have over their children. However, by giving the state this sort of electricity he denies his own rights as a resident. Dworkin argues that, "a guy has a moral to speak his mind in a non-provocative way on concerns of political concern and that can be an important right that the state of hawaii must go to great pains to safeguard" (Dworkin 36), this isn't the situation for Socrates. Socrates exercised his protection under the law as a resident and was punished, however, regarding to Dworkin's thought their state made a blunder when imprisoning him for speaking his brain. In addition, there can be an assumption that the father or mother (status) has hierarchical ability; therefore the child (resident) is below the law (point out). If this were the truth, then why do Socrates speak against the state (his parents)? The Filial Piety discussion becomes problematic as Socrates contradicts his own actions of speaking against politicians. Socrates argues that he must obey the law unconditionally because the law has parental privileges over him (Plato 30); therefore, he's a slave to their state. Socrates argues that he is a free of charge man to leave if he decides to (Plato 30-31), but how do he dispute that he's a free of charge man if the state of hawaii who, according to him, have parental roles over him, have subjected him against the law? When can these privileges be restricted? Regarding to Dworkin, rights can only be limited if: values secured by original right are not at stake in this case, if marginal cases are allowed and granting right influences competing rights of course, if marginal instances are permitted and produces costs to society are beyond cost of granting right (Rodde 28 Jan. 2013). With Dworkin's idea in mind, I believe Socrates has imprisoned himself more than the real administration because he appoints the federal government as his parents through his own analogies.
To conclude, I think that Socrates should escape from prison because the Rule of Fidelity assumes that a law is actually just. While on a moralistic view we might claim that Socrates shouldn't escape from prison predicated on this debate because he must show the importance of retaining his promise, instead by not escaping he ignores regulations. For example, regulations are created to keep an orderly population where punishments are involved, building a dichotomy between right versus incorrect. By only considering the notion of 'keeping ones guarantee' in his argument, Socrates opens the way for people who've been illegally convicted to disregard the entire legislation system which is established in order to distinguish between right and incorrect, and simply do as the state says to scheduled to a 'natural' binding between the person and the state. He ignores the manipulations of the state and one's desires to live. Also, Socrates argues for the Principle of Filial Piety as an important discussion. However, the discussion is created on an analogy which cannot support itself because Socrates compares his marriage to the state as a mother or father child relationship, but fails to question what sort of state sees the relationship with its individuals. Lastly, Dworkin's idea of immoral protection under the law versus rights and his restrictions of when privileges can be restricted highlights how even though some actions may be immoral, they aren't illegitimate (Dworkin 35), therefore Socrates should get away from prison.
[Word Matter: 1474]