Advertisement Remove all ads

‘In 399 Bc, a Jury in Athens Condemned Socrates to Death for Impiety and Corrupting the Morals of the Youth - Logical Reasoning

Advertisement Remove all ads
Advertisement Remove all ads
Advertisement Remove all ads
MCQ

‘In 399 BC, a jury in Athens condemned Socrates to death for impiety and corrupting the morals of the youth. Socrates’ friends offered to help him escape, but Socrates refused. Socrates argued that the fact that he had lived in Athens for so many years meant that he had committed himself to obeying its laws. It would therefore be wrong for him to break those very laws he was implicitly committed to obeying.’

Which one of the following claims constitutes the most plausible challenge to Socrates’ argument?

Options

  • Long residence only commits someone to obeying just laws and Socrates was convicted under an unjust law.

  • Long residence by itself does not imply a commitment to obeying laws since one never made any explicit commitment.

  • Obedience to the law is not always required.

  • There is no point in escaping from prison since one will anyway be captured again.

Advertisement Remove all ads

Solution

Obedience to the law is not always required.

Explanation:

'Obedience to the law is not always required.' provides reasons to believe that Socrates need not necessarily obey the law that has implicated him.

Concept: Statement and Arguments (Entrance Exam)
  Is there an error in this question or solution?
Advertisement Remove all ads
Share
Notifications

View all notifications


      Forgot password?
View in app×