In Plato’s, The Republic, Book I, Socrates tries to prove to Thrasymachus “whether just people also live better and are happier than unjust ones” (352d). He argues that everything has a predisposed proficiency at a function, and that this functions are performed well by the peculiar virtue and badly by means of its vice (353a-353d) . The point of this paper is to present Socrates argument and evaluate it to the best of my ability. This argument can be categorized as an inductive generalization. Socrates states that the function of anything is what it alone can do or what it does best.
When stepping inside a hospital to receive help, one should expect care, treatment, and respect. However, shown in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and “Howl,” American society equates mental illness with inhumanity. In both texts, the characters are forced to live without basic human freedoms and a voice to change it. Society pressures the mentally ill into becoming submissive counterparts of the community by stripping away their physical freedoms, forcing inhumane treatment, and depriving them the freedom of expression. By pressuring confinement and treating the patients inhumanely, society strips away their freedom to express themselves.
He uses the example of ruling a city, where a government would change the rules and laws to best suit them, and as the rules are followed by those who act justly, the just would be acting in the favour of the stronger. Socrates objects to this and claims that humans will make mistake, as that is part of being human, and may
In other words, "what people deserve is determined by what they do as agents. " For example, applied strictly, if someone steals from another person, then the thief must have the same thing happen to him, and be stolen from. In this case, the punishment is equal to the crime. This is where Nathanson's objection of "moral desert" comes into play.
The statement made by Socrates “Even were the whole world against me, I had best be in harmony with myself”. Socrates in his mind the whole world that he knew was coming down on him. With the counsel of judges that Socrates
Socrates & Snowden Socrates was a true believer that true pleasure only comes when individuals live a moral life. He believed that an individual’s inner life, or the soul, is the most important part of life. Each person must keep his or her soul healthy, by seeking truth, self-knowledge, justice, and goodness. Socrates believed that any soul in search of fame, wealth, and power becomes ignorant, sickly, and weak (Claudia, 270). He was concerned with strengthening his inner self by examining and criticizing it.
Therefore, since Athens has a part to play in corrupting Socrates’s life as well as his mistaken visual of the truth, Socrates must understand that by obeying the state, he has done injustice to his soul for it will not be in true harmony. Furthermore he will be doing an injustice to the state because Plato would have established that, objectively, Athens laws are unjust and even if Socrates thinks that they are just, it is only because Socrates has been corrupted by
In the medieval period of 1050-1300, the Kingdom of France progressed and developed along many lines. A new culture developed, a central government emerged and new lines of thought began to come into fruition. With these developments, many problems began to emerge. The issue of violence in general emerged as a problem that needed to be addressed by the government. In addition, greed and corruption ravaged the church questioning its moral integrity, and thus, its authority.
Socrates bases this view of justice on the worth of living a good life. “And is life worth living for us with that part of us corrupted by unjust actions” (47e) If we corrupt our soul with injustice, our life would not be worth living, therefore one must never commit an injustice. “When one has come to an agreement that is just with someone, one should fulfill it.”(49e) It is this agreement with the Laws that Socrates would be violating, if he were to
By saying this, the authors show they have tried to set agreed terms with
be it better or worse.” (Plato, 18a). In this statement, Socrates tells the jurors to pardon if he offends then and at the same tells them to not focus their attention on
When it comes to justice, Polemarchus believes that justice is “…helping friends and harming enemies.”. Socrates questions this point of view because according to Polemarchus’ view point, only the people who are close to him and in his circle of friends would be worthy of any kind of Justice. Polemarchus is wrong in this viewpoint because if only the people that you know who are of your similar social status and you interact with on a day to day basis are considered friends, what of those that you do not know? Or what of those who are not of your social status, that you do not interact with? Socrates questions this by asking, “Do you mean by friends those who seem to be good to an individual, or those who are, even if they don't seem to be, and similar with enemies?”.
I think that there is a fallacy of irrelevance. In the book, Socrates sets out to defend the idea that it is always in one’s best interest to be just and to act justly and he suggests that the just person as one who has a balanced soul will lead one to act justly or why mental health amounts to justice. I feel that justice includes actions in relation to others, it includes considerations of other people’s good, and includes strong motivations not to act unjustly. I believe that Socrates’ defense of justice does not include constraining reasons to think that a person with a balanced soul will refrain from acts that are commonly thought to be unjust like theft, murder, and adultery.
Polus is saying that Socrates continues explaining that doing injustice “happens to be the greatest of evils” (469b5). Polus brings power into the conversion because power is something he desires and comprehends. Socrates then portrays a scene of brutal murder that is clearly wrong to illustrate that “having great power is not this: to do what seems good to oneself” (469e7). Finally, Socrates ends this section by claiming “that when someone does those things justly, it is better, but when unjustly worse” (470c). Throughout this section, Socrates makes small individual points that build together to form his main claim that it is better to suffer injustice than commit injustice acts.
Men make laws to instill order in a society and prevent chaos in any shape or form. Naturally, laws will always be somewhat unjust because it is impossible to consistently construct laws that directly and equally benefit all members of a society. There will always be a majority that makes the laws and a minority that has to obey the laws. Although laws are usually the standard of morality by which we live by, they must be disobeyed in certain situations. These situations are, but not limited to, an undemocratic formation of aforementioned laws, laws that are inherently unjust according to human law which can be synonymous with God’s law.
