Socrates believed that he had a duty to obey the laws of Athens, even when they were going to result in his unjust execution, and thus refused to escape from prison when offered the chance. Explain and discuss his reasoning, critically evaluating at least one of his arguments in detail. Do you think he is right?

Socrates believed that he had a duty to obey the laws of Athens, even when they were going to result in his unjust execution, and thus refused to escape from prison when offered the chance. Explain and discuss his reasoning, critically evaluating at least one of his arguments in detail. Do you think he is right? Explain why or why not, supporting your answers with reasons.
Your discussion post should be well written and structured (like an essay – see the Mini-Essay Guidelines), and be at least 300 words long (and you are encouraged to write something longer for a top grade)
* PLEASE LOOK THE SMAPLE I ATTACHED DOW BELOW!

Sample Essay: In the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode “In the Pale Moonlight” the main character Captain Sisko is faced with many tough choices. He is forced to make bad choices to save the lives of his people against the war with the Dominion’s. He is forced to lie, deceive, forge, and in the end he is complicit in killing Tolar to keep his actions a secret. This makes me ponder the age old question: is it wrong to do something bad if it is for the greater good of others? Do the ends justify the means? In Sisko’s case I believe he made the best decision he could with the circumstances he was given. Although I don’t feel comfortable with some of the things he did, such as (indirectly) killing a man, he did act for the greater good of everyone overall.
In the act utilitarian view, the right thing to do is determined by the consequences of our actions. The right thing to do is whatever produces the greatest amount of overall happiness for the greatest number of people. An act utilitarian should say that what Sisko did was right. The acts that he committed produced as much happiness as any other act he could have committed at the time. I believe that if Sisko had other options he would have pursued them. No other actions would have produced a better circumstance for him or his people, as they really didn’t have too many other options available. In the long term, his actions gave his people a chance to win the war so that there could be peace and prosperity for many millions of people.
Nontheless, some people might argue that Sisko was not truly behaving in the way that an act utilitarian would recommend. One might argue this by saying that he was only acting for the good of his own people, not for the greatest good of everyone involved. After all Sisko is tricking the Romulans into joining a war, a war that will be costly to them and cause a great deal of death and suffering. Certainly this point complicates things, but still, I think it can be argued that Sisko was also acting for the greater good of the Romulans, at least in the long run. His argument that the Dominion would ultimately be a threat to the Romulans after they had defeated the Federation seemed correct. There was ultimately no way for the Romulans to avoid war, but by tricking them into joining the war now, when they can fight as allies of the Federation, Sisko actually gives the Romulan people a greater chance of success and peace after the war – making a good course of action from the Utilitarian viewpoint.
A Kantian would plainly disagree with Sisko’s actions. In Kant’s view some kinds of actions are just plain wrong, regardless of the consequences. Even if the war would be good for both the Federation and the Romulans, the ends do not justify the means, according to Kant. From his “categorical imperative”, actions are wrong if they cannot be consistently universalized, or if they involve using a person as a mere means to an end. From this, Kant argues that it is, for example, always wrong to lie – because lying cannot be a universal practice, and because lying involves manipulating and using people. Sisko engaged in massive deceptions to fool the Romulans into joining the war. Whatever the consequences, Kant would never allow such a deception, not to mention the murder that was ultimately required for Sisko’s plan to work.
In the end, I have to agree with the act utilitarian that Sisko did the right thing. Although I like Kant’s approach to ethics, when the consequences are massive, as they are in a case like this, I think that we have to reason like Utilitarians. Too many people would have suffered if Sisko had followed the “rules”. He did what he had to do for the greater good of all the people involved.

Last Completed Projects