Blog #11: "Crito vs. Socrates"

To be plain and simple, I agree with Socrates. While Crito started with a few good arguments, Socrates answered them with many more, and to a greater extent. When looking at the dialogue, it's clear that Socrates had much more to say, as he had probably one hundred words to Crito's one. Also, when Socrates convinced Crito that he should remain in his cell, awaiting his death sentence, he also convinces the reader. Crito wanted to break out Socrates because he wanted Socrates to think that his friends and followers actually cared about him, and that it would make the public's view of them bad if they did nothing to try to save him. Socrates answered with the “Don't care what others think of you” response, but took it one step further to say that the only opinions worth anything are those from officials, because they have the power to change things. Everyone else will merely hold you back from your true potential.

Finally, Socrates stated that if it was just and “legal” for him to escape, he would follow Crito, but because it was not, he was bound by the Laws of Athens. These were the foundations of their society, and breaking one of the laws, would be the same as breaking all of the laws, which Socrates couldn't do because he would be exiled from the society.

The amount and certainly the depth of Socrates' arguments forces me to choose his point of view over that of Crito's. I'm not saying that Crito didn't try, he just wasn't a fair match for Socrates.

The Law and Justice packet relates closely to this situation. On one hand, the law, or the death sentence that Socrates has received, is the concrete ruling. It is uniform for all people, and is generally formed in the best interest of the citizens as a whole. On the other hand is justice. Even though it seems unfair, Socrates would be breaking his personal morals, and for him, this would be unjust. However, to us, it seems as though justice would prevent Socrates' death, because when fire is fought with more fire, the only thing that happens is a bigger fire that soon spirals out of control.

Blog #8: "Most Valuable / Worthwhile / Interesting Topic This Year"

The topic or issue that I have found to be most interesting and valuable to me later in life, is that of law and justice.

To being with, I particularly enjoyed the movie, A Few Good Men. I’m not sure what it was about the movie, but I really liked watching it. In this resource, the concept of law versus justice was presented, and to me at least, was very easy to see. Throughout life, to this point, I had never realized the difference between the law and justice, but through a combination of my own experiences and this unit, especially this movie, I now have a better understanding of this debate.

Recently I was involved in a minor car accident. I was stopped at a red light and was rear-ended. The person who hit me had apparently looked away and didn’t react in time to safely stop in time. However, because the damage was only to my bumper and looks as though it is under $1,000, chances are, nothing will be done about it. What I mean, is that, even though she hit me and she has insurance, if I want it fixed, I’m on my own. Either I or my insurance would have to pay for it, thus making my rates skyrocket. Is this fair? Absolutely not, she rear-ended me at a RED LIGHT! I was not at fault what-so-ever. However, the law in the state of Wisconsin stands that if the damage is under $1,000, no official report has to be filed. Because of this, I would have to pay for her mistake, even though I am the victim. The law says one thing, but in my mind, justice is a complete opposite. This is because the law must provide for everyone, as if they are all the same, robot-like person. Under the law, we are all the same, but justice is not the same way. Because justice is based on morals, and everyone has a different set of them, there is no cookie-cutter for what justice can bring. Sure it’s unfair, but I understand the way our government has to work to provide for the country as a whole.

I take from this unit many things. First, my belief that the world is not fair was strengthened. But I must move on, and “get used to it.” Secondly, and by far more importantly, is the fact that the government does all it can to satisfy the needs of its people. Laws are in place to protect and provide for the citizens, and even though one incident feels unfair, the overall picture of what happens and what is in place for us is a pretty good deal. As I advance in my life, I can only learn more. This foundation is a good base for all that is what we consider government and politics. Being that the newest presidential election is today (November 4, 2008), provides a good example of this point. The more a person knows about how their government works, the more apt they are to make informed decisions on important matters, like an election. Even though I am too young to vote today, I will use this knowledge in four years when I can vote for the next presidential election.

Blog #7: "Law and Justice"

To begin with, the difference between law and justice is simple. Law is what the government requires us to do, and justice is what our personal set of morals tell us to do. However, the simplicity ends at that. One passage that I took to a higher meaning from the selected reading, Law and Justice, reads “Law is only a means. Government is only a means. ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ - these are the ends. And ‘whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.’” This statement definitely favors the justice side more so, stating that when the people don’t agree with the laws the government has enacted, then it is the people’s right to change to a government that better suits their needs. Above all else, it says that the basic human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness stand, and that the law and related government are only a way to ensure that those rights are met.

I believe that both law and justice are necessary. First justice is required, and then the law is a means to make sure the justice is achieved. They are dependent on each other for success. However, when the law says one thing, but your moral code says another, the question comes up “What should I do?” Many people struggle with this question. Are you loyal to your country, or to yourself? While most of us are both, sometimes that answer can only be one or the other, and it is up to the individual to decide. However, when choosing morals over the law, one must be prepared to face the consequences that go hand in hand with breaking the law.

I thought it was interesting how the article discussed the different ways the law is handled according to the accused. The passage reads “…a CIA official commits perjury and gets off with a fine (Alger Hiss spent four years in jail for perjury), a president is pardoned in advance of prosecution for acts against the law, … and others are found guilty of violating the law in the Iran-Contra affair, but none go to prison.” It also mentions the impact people with power because of their money have on the political process. While I was aware of most of this already, it just seemed different in print. The law is supposed to be uniform for everyone to ensure fairness for everyone. However, when powerful and wealthy individuals get involved, it seems as if they can buy their way out of their problems. This is not right, and my morals say something must be done about it. With the upcoming presidential election approaching closer and closer every day, we will just have to wait to see if Barack Obama or John McCain stay true to their words in dealing with the many problems they would face if elected president on November 4th.

Over time, law and justice haven’t really changed in a sense of sometimes the law says one thing, but your morals say another. However the individual incidents have changed, as history changes. As wars occur, peoples’ opinions about them change, and drafts are protested. Yet during peace times, this doesn’t occur, because it is irreverent.

In closing, law and justice are different, and when the time comes to choose between the two, only you can decide for yourself.