You can persuade others to se your point of view, but without intelligence it can be unjust. He believes that, "…doing what one sees fit without intelligence is bad." Socrates argument is that moral virtue is s form of intelligence, and convinces Polus that in order to have great power, you must use it for what you believe to be the better. Polus believes that those who have the power do what they see fit, and at the same time are doing what it is they want to do. Socrates refutes this and says that though the tyrant may do what he sees fit, it is not really what he wants to do.
Socrates attempts to show that certain beliefs and attitudes of justice and its nature are inadequate or inconsistent, and present a way in which those views about justice are to be overcome. Traditionally justice was regarded as one of the cardinal virtues; to avoid injustices and to deal equitable with both equals and inferiors was seen as what was expected of the good man, but it was not clear how the benefits of justice were to be reaped. Socrates wants to persuade from his audience to adopt a way of estimating the benefits of this virtue. From his perspective, it is the quality of the mind, the psyche organization which enables a person to act virtuously. It is this opposition between the two types of assessment of virtue that is the major theme explored in Socrates’ examination of the various positions towards justice.
Most of the time they do not know what is going on around their precinct because it happens behind their back. So if the issue is brought to light, we are not only helping ourselves but we are also helping future victims of the abuse. When police officers feel like they have all of the power they need to do whatever they want, they don’t focus on the consequences of their actions. Everyone knows that sexual assault is illegal yet people on the law force do it anyways. Police officers need the correct discipline when it comes to controlling how much power they are giving.
In the Republic, Plato discusses many topics, including the issue of justice versus injustice (Plato 34). Plato’s argument indicates that justice works interchangeably with proper ethics (Plato 35). According to Plato, in order for a person to live the “best life”, they must live with justice and ethics (Plato 35). These two terms are similar in the sense that it is subjective to each individual. One’s definition of justice results from their own beliefs of ethics, which varies from person to person.
In The Republic Plato constructs his argument through an analogy between a city and the soul on what justice means to him. The two main questions that drive the dialogue between philosophers are, “What is justice?” and “Is justice preferable to injustice?” Plato’s thesis of The Republic is that justice is about one’s inner harmony with the tripartite of the soul and this is seen through his analogy of the city. Instead of allowing equal value to each virtue, Plato makes the virtue of wisdom the most important, causing people who possess the other virtues seem less valuable. So there is a disparity in those getting privileges, which is unjust for people in the working class. Although Plato would counter that an Aristocracy society is the most just in providing all citizens with a function and being a part of a community that gives each person a purpose.
This center, in turn, is obligated to give the information to the individual hotels so that the hotels can then honor the reservations accordingly. Unfortunately in this example, the patron's request and approval for a king bed was not relayed from the reservation center to the hotel. As a result, the hotel employee did not have the information that the patron assumed he had received. This assumption resulted in a breakdown in communication between the hotel employee and the patron, which then created hostility on the part of the patron and defensiveness on the part of the employee. The hostility felt by the patron was partly due to past experiences with hotel employees and the negative outcomes of those experiences (Pfeiffer 12).
The Republic by Plato examines many aspects of the human condition. In this piece of writing Plato reveals the sentiments of Socrates as they define how humans function and interact with one another. He even more closely Socrates looks at morality and the values individuals hold most important. One value looked at by Socrates and his colleagues is the principle of justice. Multiple definitions of justice are given and Socrates analyzes the merit of each.
As well, Glaucon also wants to prove that an immoral life is better than a moral. He provides few examples to support his theories toward Socrates during their battle of wits. While I understand his theories I choose to disagree because there are underlining circumstances that show why a man may choose to be immoral. And in many instances those choices are not selected by preference but by necessity. I agree with Glaucon to the extent that wealth and power tend to lead individuals to immoral actions, but I disagree that this observation applies to all individuals if they were to face the same obstacles.
Glaucon makes the point that people, by nature, are always trying to better their place in society and reach superiority. Even the most moral person in the world would do unjust things if that person felt they could never be caught. People do not believe that morality is good for one personally; therefore whenever the opportunity appears, people will choose to act immorally because they feel it advances them from their current state. One does not strive for true morality, however attempts to be perceived as a moral person, to gain status in society, by really acting in an unjust way. This goes to show that people truly see morality not as an intrinsic good, but rather as an instrumental good, used to acquire more material goods and resources.
For instance, Crito says he has rich friends that will help Socrates leaves Athens. Socrates questions Crito about exile, because Socrates believed that banishment is defying the law. I do not agree with Socrates because he is given two choices, eviction or death. However, my personal perspective is that both men are right and wrong, Socrates should not escape because of his moral values; however, there is nothing wrong with exile. Socrates believed in many things; for example, believing in the after life, and not fixing injustice with additional injustice.