PHIL 101 – ASSIGNMENT
• In this passage, Socrates is saying that it would be unjust and undeserved to escape from his detainment. He says that if the Laws were to be broken, he would be making an attempt on the integrity of the Laws, and therefore diminishing the integrity of the entire State. He continues to say that if one were to go against the law with success, it would nullify the verdicts of the court and render the Laws meaningless. The passage considers whether or not laws or morality is more important, and where they intersect. Socrates indicates that the Laws should be followed because one should keep their agreements to the State. By being a citizen of the city and willfully living within it, he has submitted his hypothetical agreement to follow the Laws there. It is unjust to bend the laws at personal will, because if given the choice to forego certain rules and abide by others, they will no longer serve purpose. Socrates also argues that one should never do wrong onto another, and to escape would be immoral, or wrong. Finally, he notes that he would not be living rightly or justly if he were to act dishonestly and escape, and would not be caring for his soul. This passage specifically focuses on the honoring of agreements. He believes that should he escape, he will be violating his own principle.
•…show more content… Socrates keeps his agreement and takes the extra stride in separating the Laws and those who create them. Abiding by the laws is necessary for the sake of greater, public good and long-term municipal interest. People cannot just waive laws whenever they see fit, otherwise there is no point in having them. Furthermore, to honor your responsibility and personal morals is a cultivation of