恶法亦法？恶法非法？
苏格拉底入狱后，拒绝出逃，慷慨赴死。他以生命捍卫法律的神圣尊严，也成为这法律最大的牺牲品。若法律不公正、不健全，公民该如何选择？Hints：
Plato
Socrates
主持：fancyfrances
校对：sighsmile
翻译：sighsmile
注解：sighsmile
答疑：唔哈哈哈哈哈哈
口语点评：Lsy34
口语地址链接：http://bulo.hujiang.com/menu/2120/item/696083/http://t1.g.hjfile.cn/listen/201211/201211200655081581147.mp3It's been a major tenet of good government, at least since Plato, that citizens should obey the laws of their state whether they approve of them or not. If we were all to treat laws like a menu, only obeying the ones we happen to fancy, society could hardly survive.
That, said Plato, was one of the reasons Socrates had for not running away but for staying and drinking the hemlock, when he was sentenced to death in 399 BC. As he saw it, obedience to the law was the crucial contract a citizen made with the state.
But that basic point shouldn't stop us reflecting a bit harder on the laws we live by. It's easy to fall into the trap of imagining a perfect fit between what is bad, morally or otherwise, and what is illegal. And it's easy to forget that accidents of history can have a lot to do with what we choose to criminalise or regulate.无论对本国法律是否赞同，公民都应遵守法律，这一直是政治清明的一大原则，至少从柏拉图时代起便是如此。假如我们都将法律当作菜单，只遵守刚好合乎自己心意的部分，那么社会将难以维系。
柏拉图称，公元前399年，苏格拉底被判死刑时，并未出逃而是留在希腊并饮下毒芹汁，其理由之一便是上述看法。在苏格拉底看来，遵守法律是公民与城邦缔结的重要契约。
但是，这一基本观点不应该使我们停止对生活中的法律进行更加认真深入的反思。我们很容易陷入误区，幻想在恶（道德或非道德意义下的）与非法之间达成完全一致。我们也很容易忘记，历史偶然事件与我们选择对哪些事物定罪或规制之间有很大的关系。
页:
[1]