Scenario: The new president begins deporting immigrants and citizens of a certain descent or otherwise considered undesirable. Citizens are required to turn anyone who fits these criteria into the authorities for deportation.
I would not obey this law. I believe everyone should be treated equally, no matter where they come from or their descent. I think that deporting people simply because of their background is wrong, and I would not want to be a part of it. I would also be concerned about potential abuse if this law were enacted. People could use it to target those they don’t like or agree with, which would not be fair or just. I would also be worried about how this law could impact families. It would be very difficult for families to be separated, and I would not want to be responsible for that. I would also be concerned about how this law could impact the economy. If people are deported, they will no longer be able to contribute to the economy, which could negatively impact the country as a whole. If the new president begins deporting immigrants and citizens of a certain descent or otherwise considered undesirable, I will work to overturn this law. I believe that this law is unjust and discriminatory. I would work with others to change the law and raise awareness about the issue. I would also help those affected by the law by providing them with information and support. I would not obey this law in the meantime. I would not want to be a part of something that I believe is morally wrong.
Additionally, I would be worried about the potential consequences of turning someone into the authorities for deportation. What if the person I turned in was innocent? What if they were mistreated or hurt in some way by the authorities? I would not want to live with the guilt of knowing I had a hand in someone’s suffering. Therefore, I do not obey the law of deporting immigrants and citizens of a certain descent or otherwise considered undesirable or turn anyone who fits these criteria into the authorities for deportation because I believe it is inhuman and unjust.
The ‘Argument Against Chaos,’ from Plato’s Crito, is an argument against giving into chaos or succumbing to the chaos surrounding us. Plato likens chaos to the cave’s darkness, where we are surrounded by darkness and ignorance (Plato, 426–435). He argues that if we give into chaos, we will be lost in the darkness, like a caveman who has never seen the light of day. Plato argues that we must rise above the chaos and find order and reason in the world. He likens this to the sun’s light, which dispels the darkness and allows us to see clearly. Plato argues that we must find the Forms, which are the perfect, eternal, and unchanging ideas that underlie all of reality. We hope to find true knowledge and wisdom by understanding the Forms. In the scenario, the president begins deporting immigrants and citizens of a certain descent or otherwise considered undesirable. Citizens must turn anyone who fits these criteria into the authorities for deportation. This action would cause chaos and disorder in society. The ‘Argument Against Chaos,’ from Plato’s Crito, would argue against giving into this chaos. Plato would argue that we must rise above the chaos and find order and reason in the world. He would argue that we must find the Forms, which are the perfect, eternal, and unchanging ideas that underlie all of reality. We hope to find true knowledge and wisdom by understanding the Forms. In this scenario, the Forms would be the ideal of justice and equality. We must strive to uphold these ideals, even in the face of chaos and disorder.
The ‘Argument from Reciprocal Obligations,’ from Plato’s Crito, is based on the idea that we have obligations to those who have treated us well (Plato, 426–435). In this case, the argument is that we are obligated to our country because it has treated us well. We should obey its laws and defend it against its enemies. The allegory of the cave is used to illustrate this point. The people in the cave are like immigrants who have been treated well by their country. They are comfortable and content in their cave and do not want to leave. However, if someone were to come along and offer them the opportunity to see the world outside, they would be foolish not to take it. The simile of the line is used to explain why. Just as a straight line is the shortest distance between two points, so is it the best way to live one’s life (Plato, 426–435). The Forms are used to explain the idea of the Good. The Good is the highest Good and is what we should all strive for. The ‘Argument from Reciprocal Obligations’ applies to the scenario in the following way. The president has begun deporting immigrants and citizens of a certain descent or otherwise considered undesirable. Citizens must turn anyone who fits these criteria into the authorities for deportation. However, some argue that we are obliged to these people because they have been treated well by their country. We should obey its laws and defend it against its enemies.
The ‘Spirit of the Laws Argument’ from Plato’s Crito states that a person should suffer rather than do wrong (Plato, 426–435). This is because if a person does wrong, they will incur punishment from the state and suffer accordingly. However, if a person suffers wrong, they will not incur punishment from the state and thus be better off. This argument is based on the premise that it is better to suffer than to do evil. Suppose the president begins deporting immigrants and citizens of a certain descent or otherwise considered undesirable. In that case, the citizens should suffer the wrong of being deported than do the wrong of deporting them. This is because if the citizens deport the immigrants and citizens, they will incur punishment from the state in the form of being deported. However, if the citizens suffer the wrong of being deported, they will not incur punishment from the state and will thus be better off.
The Argument Against Chaos suggests that society would descend into chaos if the president allowed immigrants and citizens of a certain descent or otherwise considered undesirable to remain in the country (Plato, 426–435). This argument relies on the assumption that these groups of people are somehow responsible for the chaos that would ensue. However, there is no evidence to support this claim. Research has shown that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens. Therefore, this argument is not convincing.
The Argument from Reciprocal Obligations suggests that citizens must deport immigrants and citizens of a certain descent or otherwise considered undesirable because they have benefited from the country’s hospitality (Plato, 426–435). This argument is based on reciprocity, the idea that people should treat others how they would like to be treated. However, this argument fails to consider that many of these immigrants and citizens have lived in the country for years and have contributed to the country in many ways. In addition, many of them have family members who are U.S. citizens, and deporting them would cause great hardship for their families. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
The Spirit of the Laws Argument suggests that the president is obligated to deport immigrants and citizens of a certain descent or otherwise considered undesirable because it is necessary to uphold the law (Plato, 426–435). This argument is based on the idea that the president is the chief law enforcement officer, and he has to enforce the laws. However, this argument fails to consider that many of these laws are unjust and discriminatory. In addition, the president has the authority to use discretion in enforcing the laws, and he should use this discretion to protect the rights of all people, regardless of their race or ethnicity. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
In conclusion, I can’t entirely agree with the law of deporting immigrants and citizens of a certain descent or otherwise considered undesirable or turning anyone who fits these criteria into the authorities for deportation because I believe it is inhuman and unjust. The arguments do not support this either. It is therefore conclusive that the law is not good enough for the country and its citizens.
Reference
Plato, Complete Works. “Republic, translated by GMA Grube, rev. CDC Reeve, edited by John Cooper, 426–435.” (1997): 1058-1066.
write