This is an opportunity that Socrates had. As noted, he was aware that he was disobeying moral laws. However, he also acted as if the laws did not exist and failed to recognize the reality of them. In doing so, he lost his opportunity to change them. In doing so, he also rejected the fact that he does exist as part of a larger system and ignored the fact that the laws still exist for everyone else, regardless of whether he accepts them. In considering Socrates' opinions on the laws, it seems that if he felt strongly enough to reject them, he should have felt strongly enough to take some action to change them. This is Socrates problem, where he both rejected the laws and tried to avoid the consequences. His major error was not in rejecting the laws, since it is noted that laws are fallible and so there will sometimes be reason to reject them. His error was in his inability to accept the consequences of doing so. He refused to recognize that he was rejecting the law, acting as if they did not exist or apply if he considered them wrong. Based on this, he then refused to argue against the laws or state his case. For Socrates, the consequences of breaking the law included that there was a need to justify his actions. If Socrates had of accepted responsibility for his choices, he would have made valid arguments and justified his choices. This also would have given the society the opportunity to see the...
It was noted earlier that like everyone, Socrates was both an individual and part of a larger system. Accepting the consequences of disobeying the laws would have allowed him to play his part in the larger system by changing the laws that govern all individuals. However, Socrates chose not to play his part in the system and his choices were based only on his own moral codes. This is not realistic approach since no person is ever just an individual as long as they exist as part of a larger society.
5. Kant's "Copernican Revolution" in philosophy is in his genius use of the positive aspects of Rationalism (Descartes and so on) and Empiricism (Locke, Berkeley and Hume). How can you argue this out with the help of the "Critique of Pure Reason"? The human experience of negotiating the universe as it seems to be presented to us is one governed by a great many assumptions. Our education of this process, and
Obama endorsed an Illinois handgun ban while he was serving in the Illinois state legislature and also supports a ban on semi-automatic weapons. However, the current President professed his support for the Second Amendment, stating that he supports restrictions to keep guns out of the wrong hands, not a full prohibition. In Illinois he co-sponsored a 2000 to limit consumer purchases of firearms to one gun per month --
Philosophy (general) Given that experience is argued to be the foundation of knowledge (according to Locke) how - if at all - does Locke make room for what Leibniz would call 'necessary truths'? Gottfried Leibniz made many criticisms of the work of John Locke, while acknowledging its sophistication and importance, observing that 'although the author of the Essays says hundreds of fine things which I applaud, our systems are very different' (Leibniz,
The definition of harmony of the fourth book is thus commensurate with the justice of the first book of "The Republic" -- the unity, harmony, and perfection of the ideal forms of the heavens are mirrored in a unified and harmoniously operated state, in the Platonic view as expressed by Socrates. But Socrates, as he speaks to his fellow Athenians in a law-court, making a plea for his life,
Within its strict perspective of humanity, there is no room for free will; actions are automatic responses to prompts from one's surroundings. It goes without saying that behaviorists do not allow for mankind's soul; this does not rest well with most, particularly with theologians and religious leaders. Naturally, such perspectives on humanity are not acceptable to many. What's more, behaviorism is harshly reproached for its inability to generalize behavior.
Consider the case of Mr. a, the irrational quadriplegic who has little movement from the neck down, and lives in a nursing home. He is irrational in his behavior, and often demands very explicit forms of treatment, and then rejects or refuses these treatments or other treatments. He has become violent on occasion, and has created problems between patients and staff. He has been expelled from one nursing home,
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now