Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
Philosophy has always played a significant role in humans lives, and the greatest philosophers create laws that are different from governmental regulation but close individuals beliefs. The Crito is one of the famous ancient dialogues where the main character Socrates states that injustice should not be replied with injustice, and people should not violate governmental laws and commit crimes to satisfy their moral needs. In the modern world, Crito requires many philosophers to argue whether the dialogue is a plea for law obedience or some aspect that allows people to commit a crime and pay the price of life or freedom. Many philosophers may contradict this dialogue and propose their versions of the law of obedience. Consequently, this essay will present ideas of different philosophy representatives and reveal examples of cases when governmental regulations can have less value than moral principles.
Philosophy of Governmental Regulations and Moral Principles
Two famous philosophical leaders, Socrates and King, have always had protesting ideas regarding the obedience of laws and morality. Socrates is a Greek philosopher who is well-known in Western philosophy (Taylor, 2019). He did not have any writings or books, but his speech and how he presented the views and ideas have been inspiring thousands of people. In the paper created by Plato (1927), the discussion between Crito and Socrates showed one of the famous opinions of the philosopher. People do not have to care about others and their opinions because an individual might lose the life energy which is crucial for everyday life. King was combining political skills and philosophical knowledge in his works. Philosophers ideas were stating that people can violate the governmental laws only in several cases when morality requires individuals to act and become responsible for this action.
The views related to the law obedience presented by these two philosophers are similar in different perspectives. However, some of their predecessors believe that the same aspect has been discussed from different sides, and conflicting moments should be evaluated to understand both philosophical leaders correctly. For instance, Socrates says that peoples fear of committing specific actions is significant, and they usually keep their ambitions inside not to face legal governmental problems (Plato, 1927). However, King proposes that morality and emotions can become compared to laws accepted by governments, and it is important to understand the rights people have. In this case, people who violence the laws can be justified. Every person can understand the ideas of these two leaders differently. While some individuals believe that King and Socrates share approximately the same visions, others are sure that the discussions present diverse spheres of life. I agree with Socratess ideas and the way he explains the topic in depth. Moreover, the leader explained morality and how it relates to individuals from different angles.
Even though some people might find the law obedience discussions presented by philosophical leaders different, some believe that they share similar views. Both leaders stated that when people commit a crime or just violence the law, they should be ready for the punishment. King and Socrates have met the contradiction of morality and direction in their lives, and both received penalties without quarrel. Their ambitions were stronger than the fear of being sentenced or killed. Consequently, all their discussions were related to morality and analyses of what cases when the law obedience might happen. Even though King was against the crimes committed under emotional motives, the philosophical areas of both role models were almost the same, and some ideas were similar.
Before disobeying the law, people should meet specific criteria of their morality condition. King managed to explain this aspect in more depth compared to Socrates, who was also trying to explain the importance of moral stability in law obedience. When it comes to a criminal action like killing, it is crucial to be sure if the motive is justified. For example, when the act of killing happens in order to defend the personal life or the life of a close person, the reason can be defensible. However, the person will be responsible for the action and should be ready to receive a penalty or even be deprived of liberty. The line between morality and crime is very thin, and philosophers provide the most common examples when individuals can violent the law to defend personal moral beliefs.
Conclusion
In conclusion, philosophy is a complicated aspect of life that several individuals can understand differently. The works of the create philosophers guide people to develop their visions regarding a specific topic. King and Socrates are among the well-known models of the philosophy study who showed the world the argument oriented on law obedience. While some people believe their thoughts were not similar, others state that since the topic is the same, the problem is discussed from different perspectives. In some cases, crimes can be morally justified, but people should be ready for punishment in every situation, which strength may vary from light to strong. People should not be judged because of their beliefs. Every individual has a chance to accept the visions of different philosophers who have presented their thoughts in this specific area.
References
Plato (1927). Crito. Bodleian library.
Taylor, C. C. W. (2019). Socrates: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.