More handpicked essays just for you.
Virtue can be taught
How does virtue theory contrast with the other normative ethical theories? Does it have any significant differences
Between morality and cognitive development
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
According to Aristotle, a virtue is a state that makes something good, and in order for something to be good, it must fulfill its function well. The proper function of a human soul is to reason well. Aristotle says that there are two parts of the soul that correspond to different types of virtues: the appetitive part of the soul involves character virtues, while the rational part involves intellectual virtues. The character virtues allow one to deliberate and find the “golden mean” in a specific situation, while the intellectual virtues allow one to contemplate and seek the truth. A virtuous person is someone who maintains an appropriate balance of these two parts of the soul, which allows them to reason well in different types of situations. …show more content…
Socrates attempts to make other people reason well and therefore be virtuous by performing their human function; I believe that this action inwardly reflects Socrates’s own virtue. For example, if a professor can effectively teach mathematics to his students, then he most likely holds knowledge of the subject within himself. In a similar way, Socrates instills virtue in other people, which shows that he himself is a virtuous being. Although some people criticize him, evidence of his positive impact is reinforced by the approval and support of his friends in the Apology. While promoting virtue when alive, Socrates wishes to continue to encourage virtue even after death. For example, at the onset of his death, Socrates asks the jurors to ensure that his sons are given grief if they care for anything else more than virtue (Plato and Grube 44). While Socrates could have been thinking about himself or other things at that moment, he is thinking of how to guide people towards living virtuously. Both his actions while living and his intentions after death reveal that Socrates wished to aid people in living virtuous lives, which highlight his own state of
One of the argument found in Plato’s Apology is that during the trial, Socrates had tried to defend himself in front of the judges and spoke, “If I disobeyed the oracle because I was afraid of death, then I should be fancying that I was wise when I was not wise”. This is an example of a Deductive Argument because it has a hypothetical syllogism which consist of having a conditional statement for both its premises in this case. More interestingly in this argument, it consists of pure hypothetical syllogism due to the fact that both statements are conditional. Based on the information given in this form of argument, I believed that this is considered to be an invalid argument because the conclusion does not necessarily follow both premises as
According Aristotle, a virtuous person will always use reason and intellect, and effortlessly make the correct decisions in every situation. They have their hexis in the correct place, and they have truly lived and struggled. With a virtuous person, life will have not been easy, and a virtuous person will have had to experience difficult times and learn from these experiences. These experiences are what will make them a virtuous person. For example, a person who had lived their life in poverty, then makes the decision to work and study to get a high paying job. With this, they dedicate a great deal of their time and money to helping the homeless. This person would be an example of what a virtuous person, their soul has had struggled, and without this they would have not become this person. They need to have this struggle in order to become a virtuous person. With a virtuous person, they are naturally a good person.
There are several main argument in The Apology by Greek Philosopher Plato, such as Socrates were that he argues the physical over metaphysical, he argued the weaker claim over the stronger claim, he went against the gods, and he was corrupting the youth. These are the allegations brought against Socrates amid his trail. But Socrates dependability presents drearily ordered number of cases to give legitimate and sound contentions to demonstrate that he is guiltless of the energizes conveyed against him to the court.
During this essay the trail of Socrates found in the Apology of Plato will be reviewed. What will be looked at during this review is how well Socrates rebuts the charges made against him. We will also talk about if Socrates made the right decision to not escape prison with Crito. Socrates was a very intelligent man; this is why this review is so critical.
In the retelling of his trial by his associate, Plato, entitled “The Apology”; Socrates claims in his defense that he only wishes to do good for the polis. I believe that Socrates was innocent of the accusations that were made against him, but he possessed contempt for the court and displayed that in his conceitedness and these actions led to his death.
In the opening of The Apology, Socrates informed the jurors how he intends to address them, what they should pay attention to in his remarks, and what he sees as his greatest obstacle in gaining an acquittal. How does he intend to address the jury? Socrates’ approach towards addressing the jury is way different than what you would see a normal defendant doing. Socrates does not stand in front of the jury and beg that he doesn’t get charged. Instead, Socrates believes that you shouldn’t have to cry and beg for the right to live in court if the defendant has done nothing wrong. The first thing that he says when speaking to the jury was to basically hear him out, and listen to even if he started to talk in his language of habit. He then said they should excuse that because he is seventy years old and has never appeared in court. “I must beg of you to grant me one favor, If you hear me using the same words in my defense which I have been in habit of using, and which most of you may have heard in the agora, and at the table of the money-changers, or anywhere else, I would ask you to not be surprised at this, and bot to interrupt me (Dover p. 19).”
He stated, “So virtue is a provisional disposition… virtue is a mean; but in respect of what is right and what is right and best, it is an extreme (Aristotle, 42).” Here Aristotle explains that moral virtue is determined by reason and that it avoids the states of too much, excess, or too little, deficiency. He believes that our soul is the principle of living because it is inside of us. Therefore, for Aristotle the soul was morally which is where we are given the right reason. He believes that, “there are two parts of the soul, one rational and one irrational (Aristotle, 145).” The rational part, which is how he believe we should do our actions upon, consists of possessing reason, part that can think and command, and intellectual virtues, which are virtues that come from time and experience. Courage is a moral virtue. When having courage, you either have too much fear, which makes you a coward, or you have too little fear, where you’d be considered rash or fool hardy. Generosity is also a moral virtue. When you are generous, you are either giving too much, which makes you profligate, or you are giving too little which would consider you as a stingy person. Moral virtues lead you to happiness because of their intermediate state that is by
How can this be seen as a criticism of Plato and Aristotle? In your opinion, is the criticism correct?
In Plato’s Apology, when Socrates is pleading his defence, he makes a good argument against the charges of corrupting the youth of Athens. This is evident when he states that, firstly, Meletus, the man who is trying to get Socrates executed, has never cared about the youth of Athens and has no real knowledge on the subject. Secondly, Socrates states that if he was in some way corrupting the youth, then he was doing it unintentionally or unwillingly, in which case he was brought to court for no reason. Finally, Socrates brings to light the fact that Meletus doesn’t have a single witness to attest to Socrates’ corruption. This is how Socrates proves his argument that he isn’t responsible for corrupting the youth of Athens.
Throughout the readings of The Apology of Socrates and Crito I have found that Socrates was not a normal philosopher. It is the philosopher's intention to question everything, but Socrates' approach was different then most other philosophers. From one side of the road, Socrates can be seen as an insensitive, arrogant man. He did indeed undermine the laws so they fit his ideals, leave his family, and disregard the people's values. On the other side he can be seen as an ingenious man who questioned what many thought was the unquestionable. As he can be criticized for disregarding the many's ideals he can also be applauded for rising above the daily ways of popular thought. He questioned the laws that he thought were wrong and, to his death, never backed down in what he believed in. People may see that as stupidity or as heroism, the beauty of it is that either way people saw it, Socrates wouldn't care.
The Apology is Socrates' defense at his trial. As the dialogue begins, Socrates notes that his accusers have cautioned the jury against Socrates' eloquence, according to Socrates, the difference between him and his accusers is that Socrates speaks the truth. Socrates distinguished two groups of accusers: the earlier and the later accusers. The earlier group is the hardest to defend against, since they do not appear in court. He is all so accused of being a Sophist: that he is a teacher and takes money for his teaching. He attempts to explain why he has attracted such a reputation. The oracle was asked if anyone was wiser than Socrates was. The answer was no, there was no man wiser. Socrates cannot believe this oracle, so he sets out to disprove it by finding someone who is wiser. He goes to a politician, who is thought wise by him self and others. Socrates does not think this man to be wise and tells him so. As a consequence, the politician hated Socrates, as did others who heard the questioning. "I am better off, because while he knows nothing but thinks that he knows, I neither know nor think that I know" (Socrates). He questioned politicians, poets, and artisans. He finds that the poets do not write from wisdom, but by genius and inspiration. Meletus charges Socrates with being "a doer of evil, and corrupter of the youth, and he does not believe in the gods of the State, and has other new divinities of his own."
(37) The problem is that many of the citizens of Athens who wanted Socrates dead, lacked that emotional intelligence and thought highly of themselves. So of course they become defensive when Socrates sheds light on the idea that they may be wrong. As someone who cared most about the improvement of the soul, Socrates would have made a constructive role model to the criminals of Athens, as he would go on saying, “virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue comes money and every other good of man…”(35) Socrates was able to benefit everyone alike as he had human wisdom- something that all the Athenians could relate
The identification of the soul parts as the contributors and main elements for the function of the most important human activity (reasoning), marks the inevitable psychological asset of Aristotle’s thinking; specifically, the classification of human virtues derives from the analysis of the soul’s types, attributing to human beings the ability of reasoning which distinguishes human beings from the rest of ‘natural bodies.’ Indeed, reason exists in two parts of the soul, namely the rational and the appetitive (desires or passions), and so it expresses within two different virtues, the moral and intellectual ones. Moral virtues satisfy the impulses of the appetitive part and the intellectual virtues hav...
leaders like Alexander and Caesar, to some of the most diabolical the world has ever seen, such as Vlad the Impaler of Adolf Hitler. One idea has remained constant, and that is wisdom. Over time, philosophers, teachers, spiritual leaders, and other important thinkers have tried to understand the concept of wisdom. As these individuals have come up with numerous theories and ideas regarding wisdom, some are more accepted than others. There are three ways that wisdom can be looked at through the eyes of the ancient philosophers. What contributes to human wisdom, how different philosophers have defined wisdom over centuries, and how these philosophers definitions compare and contrast with the view of wisdom in Plato’s Apology.
As students file into the auditorium of the Academy the first thing that we all notice is the two professors that were standing at the front of the room. After all the students were seated that is when the first professor stepped forward to address the class. Plato: Good Morning Students! Students: Good Morning Professor! Plato: Many of you may know who I am and then there are those of you that do not. For those of you that do not know who I am, my name is Plato. I founded this Academy in 387 and it is the first of its kind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_Academy). I have studied under many great philosophers. After Plato got done speaking he stepped back and the professor standing to the left of him stepped forward and addressed the class. Aristotle: Good Morning Student! Students: Good Morning Professor! Aristotle: Like Plato there are many of you that know me and there are those of you that do not. So I will introduce myself to those of you that do not know me. My name is Aristotle. I was a