Socrates Just Agreement

One of the most controversial topics That Crito raises is Socrates` legalistic portrayal of laws as a human. It presents a vision of society, in which citizens who are not able to change laws by convincing the legislator must comply with the laws to remain „just“. Those who do not want to live under such laws must emigrate if they want an ethical life. [33] Although Socrates ultimately rejects the idea of expulsion, he believes that it is ethical because the court had proposed it and because the judgment was unjust. It has, however, followed the general context of platonic ethics in the sense that it is a priority to avoid injustice. [12] This is a voluntary, intentional and legally binding agreement between two or more competent parties. Contracts are usually written, but can be spoken or implied and are related to employment, sale, rental or rental. A contractual relationship is demonstrated by (1) by an offer, (2) by the acceptance of the offer and by a valid (legal and valuable) consideration (3). Each Party acquires rights and obligations with respect to the rights and obligations of the other Parties. Perhaps the term „employment“ in the above definition had a different social meaning and connotation in the era of Socrates. That is why it is ignored in this context. However, the true character of a treaty remains the same, and it is its „binding“ character because of mutual agreement on the common cause that is of interest to both parties. The time when Socrates lived was already a developed society.

It was a city with courts, laws, the ruling class, commerce, war, peace and politics. All of these elements were present when Socrates began to question the established norms of his society. It is interesting to note that all changes imposed on a system cause entropy and cause chaos. Chaos in any society develops insecurity and therefore there are injustices. In principle, any social contract must avoid such a situation in a society. Therefore, if Socrates attempts to question the city`s established norms and religion, he should expect strong opposition and counter-reactions. „So let`s discuss the first topic I mentioned – what justice is and what its origins are. They say that doing injustice is good in nature and that it is wrong to suffer injustice, but that the wickedness of suffering goes so far beyond the good of doing so that those who have done and suffered injustices and who have cost both, but who do not have the power to do so and avoid it, to suffer it, to decide that it is profitable to get along, not to do injustice or to suffer. As a result, they begin to make laws and covenants, and what the law commands, they call them legitimate and just. This is, they say, the origin and nature of justice. . .

.