If it is concluded after a serious reflection that the war which we have been engaged in is unjust, the advice that Socrates might give us is that compensatory justice should be enforced. That is, we should compensate, give benefits, to the persons (in country that we were fighting with) who have suffered underserved hardships or have been denied benefits they deserved (Plato et al. 22). However, as far as the Socrates’ advice would be seen to be the most appropriate one, we will not agree with it because we were at war. This implies that as far as the war was unjust, the opponent country was also attacking us and there are also serious effects and harms which they have posed on our country.
According to Plato et al. (33), we will implement distributive justice. That is, ensuring fair distribution of both burdens and benefits to countries in conflict of interest and relative scarcity. This is due to the fact that after carrying out further investigation, we will found that there are cases of death, property and livestock destruction in both countries. Hence, there will increased need of compensating victims in both countries. It will therefore not be easy for us to compensate the other country and to victims from our own country.
The other option is for us to send diplomats in that country to ask for forgiveness and restore peace on behalf of our entire country. This will be the most effective idea when putting into consideration that both countries lost their citizens. We will encourage free trade and encourage many other activities that will facilitate peace and reconciliation (Plato et al. 66). We will also implement new rules regarding governing military operations so as to ensure that there is no other incidence of unjust war and attacks. By doing this, I believe that we will be in good position to enhance peace and leave far behind all that happened in the past.
When putting into consideration laws of the land, it would have been unjust for Socrates to escapes. It is said that laws come from God and men are only used to implement and enforce them. Thus, it is not morally appropriate to disobey the law. Everybody, everywhere is supposed to ensure that he or she uphold the laws at any cost. Even though some people assert that some laws are unfair, there are no unfair laws since everybody is equal before the law.
Laws are not implemented by one person but with a group of people from all aspects of life. There are also consequences of breaking the law that are known to everybody. Hence, whenever you disobey the law, you should be ready to face the consequences. Morals and ethics are the major components of all laws across the world (Plato & Morley 67). Hence, breaking or disobeying any law means that you are immoral and unethical. Due to this fact, it is therefore apparent that it is unethical and morally inappropriate to disobey the law.
In his efforts to convince Socrates t escape from the jail, Crito used many arguments and statements. He told him about the impact of his (Socrates’) death on him (Crito) and on the entire society. He even told Socrates repercussions of his escaping, repercussions which they were ready to face. However, there is one argument which Crito could have made but he didn’t make. That is, laws at times are swayed in favor of certain individuals (Plato & Morley 83). This implies that you might be accused falsely or laws can be swayed to make you guilty or innocent according to your power and financial status. Thus, Socrates could have been accused falsely or Crito had ability to liberate Socrates due to his power and financial status.
While for many moral judgments have been merely expressions of their personal preferences, this has never been the issue in my case. Just like Regan, my judgments have never been based on my preferences but in regard to the rule of law and situation at hand (Fellenz 74). It is true that many people are making judgments merely in expressions of their preferences. Even civil servants and judicial officers have been swaying laws and making judgments in favor of their preferences.
As I said, I only make judgments in regard to the situation at hand and rule of law. This is to say that even if my close relative or friend commits a crime, I will not cover him but the law will prevail by reporting him/her to the relevant authority (Fellenz 77). Furthermore, I cannot make a judgment that will harm other person with an objective of self benefit. Nevertheless, there are certain cases where I am forced to moral judgments that merely express my personal preference.
There are certain cases in life particularly those regarding to education that have forced me to make judgment as expression of my personal preferences. I had preferred to join good high school and university, a fact that has led me to be very sensitive when dealing with any issue that is related to education. There are many cases where I had to deceive my parents whenever they wanted to transfer me to another school. However, it is of no importance to make judgments that merely express your preferences because you might find yourself being unable to make judgments regarding other issues or affecting other people or groups.
Even though many people believe that you must believe in God in order to be moral, this is critically wrong. It is possible to be moral without believing in God. This is not only confirmed in the holy bible but also supported by Steven Cahn’s position and Eeuthyphro’s paradox. There are many people full of immorality but strong believers in both God and Christ. Hence, Cahn argues that morality does not rest on belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God (Cahn 134). This is supported by the biblical assertion that actions speak louder than words.
An individual can be moral without believing in God. Even definition of moral itself “expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior” suggests that it is possible to be moral without believing in God. We have seen many people across the world including anti-Christ illustrating morality and being moral. On the other hand, there have been many cases where believers and even clergies have been found red-handed being involved in immoral activities and deeds. The ability to be moral without believing in God is further strengthened with Euthyphro’s question on whether something is wrong because God says it is wrong or whether God says something is wrong because it is wrong.
Therefore, when looking at Steven Cahn’s position and Eeuthyphro’s paradox it is very true that morality has got nothing to do with belief in God but concern an individual’s ability to do what is good but not bad for him, other people, or community at large (Cahn 167). What an individual needs to know in order be moral is to know what is right and wrong and doing them as required. It is easy to know what is right or wrong by reading and following rules and laws of the land of which faith or belief in God is not part of.