Reference no: EM132452147

Write a paper on ONE of the three topics described below. Your paper should include critical examination and analysis and should: (1) clarify the position being examined; (2) elaborate the argument(s) for or against the position in question; (3) carefully assess the adequacy and strength of the argument(s) by considering possible responses, counter-arguments, or counter-examples; and (4) offer your own overall assessment of where the arguments for and against the position being considered leave us--should we accept, reject, or remain neutral regarding this orientation, view, or position?

In his Apology Plato's Socrates says that he would continue to philosophize even if the court ordered him not to, and that acting justly is paramount. He also mentions that he disobeyed an order from the government when he refused to execute Leon of Salamis (32c). Thus it seems that he does not believe one must always obey the laws of the state in order to act justly. In Crito, however, he accepts a death sentence and refuses to escape from a conviction on a charge that he believes is false--he chooses to obey the state's laws rather than reject them. It seems there is an inconsistency here. Either one has to obey the laws or one doesn't!

1. Carefully set out Socrates's arguments in favor of his claim that he must obey the laws of Athens.

2. Carefully set out Socrates's explanation of why he has refused to follow orders given to him by the army. If Socrates is willing to disobey a law that says, "Don't philosophize," why won't he disobey the state when it seeks to kill him for corrupting the youth-a charge he denies?

3. Explain how, in your judgment, Socrates might best defend himself against the charge of inconsistency?