Plato on Current issues of Legality

Plato on Current issues of Legality
Introduction
One of the ethical and legal issues that are currently in the public domain is the issue of euthanasia. Great philosophers, Plato one of them, discussed important moral and legal issues that can help towards the resolution of the debate on the ethics and legality of euthanasia or assisted death. Some of issues within the debate of the legality of euthanasia, which are highly contested in the public debates on the issue, include the need for the law to regulate timing and manner of dying, the need for the law to ensure that if euthanasia is legalized, there shall be no potential abuse of the law, considering the society’s prohibition against assisted death, a culture that has existed for a long time. Also, the debate has included the need for the law to consider the fundamental duty of the doctor, which is to preserve life. The debate on euthanasia shows that legalizing euthanasia is a paradoxical issue for the doctors whose duty of preserving life contradicts with the role they play in assisted death. The other issues that would attract Plato’s argument include gun control, legalizing illegal drugs, and same sex marriage.
a) How Plato would argue on euthanasia
Plato discussed legal issues that are related to the issue of euthanasia. In Plato’s discussions, he equated euthanasia to suicide, and he argued that it is a bad practice because it is a representation of the violation of one’s mandate and divine duties. According to Plato, the duty of taking away human life is divine and belongs to God alone. It is, therefore, unjust for a human to do anything that takes away what is precious and what only God can take away.
Plato would also argue the issue of legalizing euthanasia by referring to the duty that humans have towards life. In Plato’s discussion of suicide, he argued that it is unethical and illegal for humans to commit suicide because humans are like soldiers whose duty is to guard life. Suicide and euthanasia are issues that are closely related.
In Plato’s opposition of euthanasia, he could equate the doctors to the guards who should protect life. if the doctors go against their natural duty of protecting life and they commit patients to euthanasia, Plato could then argue that it is unethical because the doctors will have abandoned their post or duty of defending life. Plato would also equate euthanasia with pronouncing another person’s death sentence. In Plato’s argument about death and whose responsibility it is, Plato pointed out that the role of sentencing to death belongs to God. Plato would then argue that if the law permits euthanasia, the very law will have contradicted God’s duty to pronounce death, and it will have transferred God’s duty to the doctors. One of the countries where Plato’s arguments would help towards resolving the debate of euthanasia is Netherlands. Netherlands is the country that has had a lot of controversy on the question of whether or not to legalize euthanasia. Euthanasia is legalized in the country from 2001. Despite the legalization however, there is a ‘hot’ public debate with many people contesting that the country should change its law on euthanasia.
b) How Plato would Argue on Gun Control
Plato would also give interesting arguments on gun control. The current debate surrounding the issue of guns, on one hand, is that the government should not allow the citizens to own their personal guns. There is also the debated issue about who kills with guns. People argue that guns do not kill but people do. This is an idea that applies Plato’s logic. According to Plato, he would argue that the fact that people kill with their guns means that the government should deal with the problems of why people kill with their guns and the not the fact that the citizens should not own guns.
Plato also raised issues of governance in his book “The Republic.” In it, he argued that the philosophers are the right people to govern the country. Plato explained how oligarchy (the rule of one man) develops. He would argue that since philosophers are not the modern-day leaders, the current governments have decided to arm the citizens only to develop fear in the fact they are armed. Plato would argue that the government’s concern about disarming the citizens is a fear of the government that the citizens would use the guns to develop an uprising against the oligarchs.
Plato would argue that the act of people killing with guns is an indication of a war for democracy. He explained that the oligarch would be overthrown by the masses through a war. Plato would, therefore, explain that the government of oligarchs fear such was and feels insecure hence the need to disarm the citizens. He would, however, argue that if the philosopher was the leader, there would be no fear about citizens owning guns because the people would not overturn the government of the philosopher.
c) How Plato would Argue on the Legalization of Illegal Drugs
The current debate on the legalization has two sides. Canada is a case country where the debate on legalization of drugs is rife. In Canada, the side that opposes legalizing illegal drugs argues that abusing drugs is a serious offense. This side of the debate argues that the government should create tough laws that extend the prison-stay and increase the fines on people who commit the crime of abusing drugs. The side is happy about the government tightening its war against drugs, for example, in 1999; the Canadian government increased its arrests on the culprits by 39%.
The side that supports the legalization of the illegal drugs feels that the big fines and increased prison-stay only punishes but does not rehabilitate (correct) the criminals. The side also argues that some of the illegal drugs, for example, marijuana, have medicinal value. The constitution should, therefore, recognize the relevance of such drugs and legalize their consumption.
Plato would not argue in support of legalizing the illegal drugs. Plato would say that it is immoral to allow people to abuse illegal drugs. Plato defines a moral person as one who has all his three sections in order. The sections are wisdom, self-discipline, and courage. Plato would say that if the government allows people to use illegal drugs, such legalization will interfere with the required order of the three sections. He would say that the illegal drugs are bad because people who abuse them do not think wisely and they develop false courage. Plato would also say that it is unwise for the government to legalize illegal drugs, meaning that the government would lack order in its wisdom aspect. Plato would say that when an individual is under the influence of the illegal drugs, some of his parts do not function properly and the individual would be immoral. Plato argued that when the kings smoked marijuana, they were corrupt and they could not act in the best interest of the society.
d) Plato’s possible argument of same-sex marriage
Another issue that is currently in the public domain is the issue of same-sex marriage. The existing body of research indicates that Canada is becoming more receptive to the practice of same-sex marriage. A poll that was conducted in Canada (2001) revealed that 75% of the Canadians supported gay relationships and they argued that the gays deserved the same rights as heterosexual people. Apart from giving gays the same rights as heterosexuals, there is also the debate about whether or not same-sex persons have natural sexual orientations. Some people argue that it is a behavioral problem while others say that they are born with the sexual orientation.
Plato would argue that same-sex marriage is not bad and it should be legalized. His dialogue, The Symposium, gives his position on same-sex marriage. It is a comic that describes man as originally being whole. However, Zeus, the Greek god cut humans into two, and from then, people spend their time looking for their better halves. Plato describes the aboriginal whole man in there ways that define their sexual orientation. There is the hermaphrodite and the two homosexuals. Plato’s argument would be that people with interest in same-sex marriages are born with the interests. Legalizing such marriages would, therefore, be a show of respect for the homosexuals’ natural rights.