To begin with, most of the laws are practical and deserve to be obeyed. It therefore follows that anything that is thought to be meaningful and has a purpose of a will then it must be involving some rational beings. Notably, the most important thing is for the responsible people to know how to attain all the purposes required in accordance with the law. This is because all the end results in obedience of the law should be in position to tell if the decision made by those concerned is just and reasonable (415). In the same line of thought, it should be understood that obedience of the law requires sacrifices where one may be required to forgo their happiness and pride for the sake of the law. In other words, the law at times has to be raised above the desires of people's requirements in order to achieve just acts.
Buy Is it really breaking the law? essay paper online
As far as Socrates is concerned all laws should be obeyed and no room is allowed to go against them. Following this point, it can be said that Socrates is right when he takes a firm position in matters concerning obedience of the law. However, given a chance to evade obedience of the law no one could willingly follow it to the latter. In fact, Socrates embraced the fact that if it were not for duty no man could have been willing to deny his/her own interest in respect of the law (410).
By obeying the law one will be doing the right thing simply because the conscience of that particular individual is at peace when justice is executed. This is exactly what is required from a rational individual who is in a position to make informed decisions. At this point, one may wonder how yet Socrates case was different because he was accused falsely.
Nevertheless, the thing is that Socrates already admitted his mistakes whether true or false and his escape from prison will be going against the law. This is because the moral laws which are suppose to guide mankind in his day to day activities requires one to obey the laws of the land in order to be morally upright. Actually, the fact of that matter is that the application of law requires reason because the willingness to follow the law is nothing but relevance of practical reasoning (412).
In addition to this, laws are mostly violated not because people do not know the right thing to do but they simply want to follow what the masses think is right for them. As a result, the will which involves choosing reason that is independent and referred to as necessary is not applied at all in this context.
In this case individuals end up just following the wishes of the majority and failing to reason as it is required when making a rational decision.
In fact, this is the reason as to why Socrates confesses to Crito that he is a man who follows his reasoning and not just any ideas. In his support for Socrates stand, Kant argues that an individual is only in a position to stand for what is morally right if his/her reasoning is practical (Kant 412). In essence, reasoning without any pragmatic experiences can bring out a situation where all points are considered to be moral.
At this point, people are in a position to understand that disobedience of the law is what has really increased evil in the society. So to speak, bribes have made many people in authority to break the laws in favor of others. By doing this, somebody somewhere suffers innocently as a result of other people's disobedience. Nonetheless, these cases cannot crop up if anyone accused by the law will stand for justice. Nevertheless, justice can only be stood for if one has the good will to stand the test of time (Kant 414).
Moreover, the most important thing whenever one is deciding on what to do is to look at the situations and see whether the actions involved are just but not looking at what people will think (Kant 408). In the same line of thought, if unjust actions are never right then it is also never correct to do a wrong in reaction of a wrong. This is the reason as to why Socrates tells Crito that he will never make a right if he treats his unjust situation with injustices by escaping prison.
In connection to this, people should mature and get in to a level where they can be able to gage impermissible and illegal actions in the land of the living. In fact, Kant in his support for Socrates is of the idea that people need to understand what is required of them by the laws of the land. At this point, Kant continues to argue that when one is in a position to know and understand the concepts that are prohibited by the law he/she is in a position to avoid it by all means no matter the enticement surrounding it. With all this, one will automatically know all the other concepts that rhyme with the moral law (Kant 408).
It therefore comes out clearly that when one is carrying out a just action then the motives behind his actions must be in line with the moral law. Along with this, Kant argues that one is recognized to have done a just act when he/she does something in respect of the law.
In relation to this, Socrates was ready to die even though he was accused falsely simply because of his loyalty to the law. This is because people make a contract with the state through the laws whereby all people are expected to observe all the laws of the land.
From a broader perspective, it can be said that for justice to be carried out one must bear in mind that part of their rights were surrendered in order to have the law that governed all people equally . Following this, all people must practice justice with the right motives as a sign of respect to the moral laws. For this reason, Socrates rigged stand on following the law hold waters simply because responding to injustice with injustice will never be right. Finally, it should be understood that by choosing to do the right thing is costly but it will remain to be just provided the moral laws are observed.