加拿大留学生论文代写:苏格拉底
Keywords:加拿大留学生论文代写:苏格拉底
对于忠实原则，苏格拉底提出了两个前提和一个结论。在他的第一个前提中，他争辩说，因为他仍然住在雅典城，没有挑战雅典的法律，所以雅典构成了遵守雅典法律的协议。他在第二个前提中说，作为公民，我们应该遵守我们的协议。因此，如果他越狱，他就会触犯法律，因此，他不应该越狱。然而，我认为忠实原则的论点是不公平的，因为它假定不管一个国家的法律是什么，如果你生活在一个社会中，你必须遵守这个社会的法律，从而同意法律是“公正”的法律。此外，政府由多数决定原则任命和选择，并为其公民规范其法律。当国家和公民之间建立起一种关系时，就会自动达成协议。公民对国家负有义务，国家也对公民负有依法公正地对待公民的义务。苏格拉底最有力的论点是忠实原则，因为他认为我们必须信守诺言(柏拉图29-30)。尽管如此，苏格拉底承认他被错误地关进了监狱(柏拉图29-30)。错误的监禁会自动使苏格拉底与国家的协议无效。因为国家不公正地指控和判决苏格拉底，违背了苏格拉底的信仰，那么为什么苏格拉底可以违背他们的信仰呢?德沃金认为,“在实践中,政府将最终决定一个人的权利领域€¦但这并不意味着政府的观点是一定正确的视图”(德沃金34)。在这段话中，Dworkin认为道德权利和法律权利是有区别的，虽然我们和政府是一致的，但是我们自己的个人权利不应该被忽视。
加拿大留学生论文代写:苏格拉底
For the Principle of Fidelity, Socrates provides two premises and a conclusion. In his first premise he argues that because he remained in the city of Athens and did not challenge its laws, it constitutes an agreement to abide by its laws. In his second premise he states that as citizens, we ought to abide by our agreements. Thus, if he escapes from prison, he will break the law, therefore, he should not escape from prison.However, I argue that the Fidelity Principle argument is not a fair one on the basis that it assumes that regardless of the laws of a country, if you live in the society you must abide by the society’s laws, thus agreeing to the laws as being ‘just’ laws.Furthermore, the government is appointed and chosen by the majority rule and regulates its laws for its citizens. When there is a relationship built between the state and its citizens, an automatic agreement occurs. While the citizens have a duty to the state, the state also has one to its citizens of treating them justly under the law. Socrates’ strongest argument is the Principle of Fidelity as he argues that we must keep our promises (Plato 29-30). Nonetheless, Socrates admits that he was put in jail on wrong terms (Plato 29-30). The wrong imprisonment automatically voids the agreement that Socrates has with the state. Because the state broke faith with Socrates by unjustly accusing and sentencing him, why then is it okay for Socrates to break faith with them? Dworkin argues, “in practice, the government will have the last word on what an individual’s rights are…but that does not mean that the government’s view is necessarily the correct view” (Dworkin 34). In this phrase, Dworkin argues that there is a difference between moral rights and legal rights and that although we are in an agreement with a government, our own individual rights should not be ignored.
