1 : Prompt:

One of the more famous claims in Socrates' argument against escape is his claim that we must "persuade or obey" the state, even when we think that the state is unjust. Disobeying, even unjust laws or policies, would be immoral. We can advocate change, but only from within the law. King argued that disobeying unjust laws was permissible or even required under certain conditions.

What do you think? Is it always impermissible to break unjust laws? Even laws that support things like segregation? Is it permissible to break any law you believe to be unjust? Even laws against things like property destruction? If it is sometimes permissible and sometimes not, what justifies the difference? Defend your answer.

2 : Prompt:

At the beginning of his argument, Rachels discusses a passage from Plato's Republic in which the character Glaucon argues that the only reason people act morally (or "justly") is because they can't get away with being immoral. He uses the example of the "Ring of Gyges." The ring makes the wearer invisible, allowing them to get away with doing anything they want.* Gyges used it to take over a kingdom. Glaucon claims that even a virtuous person who had such power would succumb to the temptation to do wrong, showing that even the most virtuous of us is really only good because they are afraid of getting punished if they are caught doing wrong.

Do you buy this? Are we only good because we fear punishment for being bad? What would you do if you had such a ring?

*It doesn't attract Ring Wraiths, or the attention of Sauron, or turn the wearer into Gollum. Suppose though, that it really does make it so that the wearer can get away with doing pretty much whatever they want, despite what modern science-fiction would have us believe.