Assume that a federal law has been made here in the United States (passed by Congress and signed by the President). Further assume that the law is a bad one, such as the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 (please read about this law on Wikipedia if you aren’t familiar with it).

All the material are attached. Each answer should be a couple of paragraphs.

Question 1:
Assume that a federal law has been made here in the United States (passed by Congress and signed by the President). Further assume that the law is a bad one, such as the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 (please read about this law on Wikipedia if you aren’t familiar with it). Create an argument for why it might be important to obey such a bad law, even if you personally disagree with it, and consider it to be morally reprehensible? (hint: some ideas should occur to you during your reading of Smith ch. 1) or you can read the short version of the chapter, which is also attached.

Question 2:
RR 1.2 On page 7, Polemarchus (Cephalus’ son) inherits his father’s argument. Polemarchus is a soldier, and is on track to become a general in Athens’ military (unless something unexpected happens). Polemarchus asserts on page 8 that justice is helping friends and harming enemies (isn’t this what you would expect a soldier to say?). But on page 13, Socrates tells Polemarchus that a just person will not harm anyone (even an enemy), and Polemarchus immediately agrees and becomes Socrates ally in the search for justice.
About 25 years after this conversation that we witness in Plato’s Republic, Athens puts Socrates on trial for, among other things, corrupting the young men of Athens. Presumably causing people to avoid military service would be a form of corruption from Athens’ point of view. Socrates is convicted at the trial, and put to death. Based on what you see Socrates accomplishing with Polemarchus, do you think Athens was correct (or at least had a defensible position) in thinking that Socrates was guilty of corrupting Polemarchus?

Last Completed Projects