Plato and Moral Obligations

The idea of moral obligation has been questioned for centuries. Not only has there never been a straight answer, one will fail to manifest in the future. Likewise, even the most enlightened philosophers, such as Plato, have yet to conclude a thesis. But Plato did believe that we can create balance and order in our society through justice. Plato’s teachings of moral obligation are still followed today, but many laws and regulations, such as the death penalty, ultimately contradict the most cerebral philosopher of all time.

Plato believed that a person’s moral obligatory behavior should be expressed by rationality. He also believed that moral obligation is based on five universals. Plato explains his reasoning using an example of man’s interests. Plato simply believed that a man should live by asking what benefits him, or what contributes to his own happiness. By entrusting that society is responsible, a man’s desire to be beneficial to “himself” would ultimately help other within the society. Thus a society of moral citizens would exist. Plato would believe to say that morality is what promotes the agent’s happiness. This can be explained by the “good feeling” a person gets when they do a good deed. Although Plato had a good understanding of proper moral behavior, he wanted to know what in general actually was rational for someone to do. Therefore the question of what moral behavior really is comes into mind yet again. Plato also created a two-fold method which is comprised of three steps. The first step is for one to omit ignorance. The second is to regain a desire to want to learn from the society. And the third is for one to understand rough intuitions leading to the knowledge of right and wrong. For decades the idea of the death penalty has been questioned. Debates have ended in stale confounds and little progress has been made in disallowing this conservative mindset. Plato strongly disagreed in Mahurabi’s code, which emphasized an eye for an eye. The code is similar to the present day death penalty such that extreme measures can be taken against an offender. In Plato’s mind justice was inevitable, but death was unwarranted. Likewise many believe that the death penalty defeats the purpose of justice; for the law is committing a similar crime of the murderer. Regardless of the means, bullet or sterile syringe, the life of a being is ultimately terminating. The definition of justice is, “to act or treat justly or fairly, regardless of past occurrences.” Thus, if an individual were to commit the unspeakable crime of murder; in what way justifies their punishment, considering the definition? The fact of the matter is, That although we self-consciously presume justice is prevailing, we are truly only gaining revenge; and revenge as well know is the sinister counterpart to moral obligation. Plato has been delineated for his luminous ideologies of human development and behavior. Plato not only advocated a myriad of different humane ideologies, he followed them in his own life. Plato paved the road for others to follow in his footsteps, and gained followers as determined as disciples. Considering the relevance between Plato’s philosophies of moral obligation, and today’s question on the death penalty, we can securely say Plato indeed impacted the world with his infinite wisdom.