Plato's Theory Of Justice Analysis
Plato’s theory of justice is about equality and that one deserves punishment if they do commit an unjust action. During the Crito, Socrates tries to correct a lot of points that Crito is trying to argue with him about, what it means to be justice. To be justice, means a human being that does good based on the laws that are emplaced according to the state. Good people according to Socrates are only worth considering. People that do good are considered moral people, and have opinions that should be regarded because their inputs are considered to be ethically correct. Being a human of ethical virtues means that they must not do wrong. Anything that is immoral, is considered immoral. We as humans may not intervene in activities that deem to be
…show more content…
Kings theory of justice in society is knowing the difference from right and wrong. His theory as a black gentlemen in the south is to fight against unjust laws. According to King, it is morally acceptable to break an unjust law, because a law that is unjust is considered no law at all. King abides by that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. He believed in civil disobedience; which meant, to break a law for a moral reason even if it is unjust. It is ethical to break a law if it is unjust, but after breaking it we need to redefine the law to make it morally acceptable to society in which it is just. Another aspect that King believed it was non-violent actions. Non-violent actions was more socially acceptable for the majority to do harmful actions to the minorities. For instance, if the blacks (technical term) protestors were violent against the whites it was considered unjust, but it was just or morally acceptable because the blacks are fighting against an unjust law which, King believes is acceptable in order to bring just amongst the two races.
In comparison King and Plato both agree on that if one commits or is acting immoral, that they should not escape from punishment. They should face the consequences that are assessed for their wrong doing. The social contract theory sums up the agreement between King and Plato. The social contract theory states that obeying laws within a community for a moral reason, is the right thing to do. Morality as a whole is
Kings theory of justice in society is knowing the difference from right and wrong. His theory as a black gentlemen in the south is to fight against unjust laws. According to King, it is morally acceptable to break an unjust law, because a law that is unjust is considered no law at all. King abides by that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. He believed in civil disobedience; which meant, to break a law for a moral reason even if it is unjust. It is ethical to break a law if it is unjust, but after breaking it we need to redefine the law to make it morally acceptable to society in which it is just. Another aspect that King believed it was non-violent actions. Non-violent actions was more socially acceptable for the majority to do harmful actions to the minorities. For instance, if the blacks (technical term) protestors were violent against the whites it was considered unjust, but it was just or morally acceptable because the blacks are fighting against an unjust law which, King believes is acceptable in order to bring just amongst the two races.
In comparison King and Plato both agree on that if one commits or is acting immoral, that they should not escape from punishment. They should face the consequences that are assessed for their wrong doing. The social contract theory sums up the agreement between King and Plato. The social contract theory states that obeying laws within a community for a moral reason, is the right thing to do. Morality as a whole is