Gorgias

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.

Plato's Moral Psychology I argue that Plato's psychological theories are motivated by concerns he had about moral theory. In particular, Plato rejects the modern account of rationality as the maximization of subjectively evaluated self-interest because, had he adopted such an account, his theory of justice would be subject to criticisms which he holds are fatal to the contractarian theory of justice. While formulating a theory to remain within ethical constraints sometimes violates the canons of scientific theorizing, Plato avoids this mistake. The first serious account of justice Plato considers in the Republic is the contractarian account. (1) It holds that is always instrumentally rational for one to further her own interests and in that certain situations (exemplified by the prisoners dilemma) it is more rational to forego one's own interests (providing others do so also) than to behave in a straight-forwardly rational way.

Socrates believed that feeling pure inside was far more important than lying, cheating, and guilting his way out. He would much rather have a pure soul than an evil soul like the unintelligent guards (Socrates, The Crito pg. 8). Even though this argument seems solid, there is still objections to Socrates’s claim. Crito thinks that we should care about the opinions of others, but Socrates claims otherwise.

What Socrates was trying to get at was well if this man was really moral why is he trying to harm anyone. Socrates goes on saying many things but one main point he made was as follows “It is not the job of a moral person to harm a friend or anyone else, it is the job of his opposite, an immoral person. Polemarchus agreed to this, which basically went against everything he said in the opening of this conversation. Socrates says that the claim that its right and moral to give back to people what they are owed, if this is taken to mean that a moral person owes harm to his enemies and help to his friends, turns out to be a claim no clever person would make.

In this paper, I will argue that Socrates does not typically benefit those that he cross-examines, but that his activity is nonetheless useful and justified. I will argue that Socrates’ cross-examinations are justified and useful because it is a divine mission and because it develops critical thinking skills. I will argue my thesis by first, using The Apology and Euthyphro dialogues to show the usefulness and justification of Socrates’ elenchus. Second, I will suggest objections to the reasons why Socrates’ elenchus is useful and justified. Finally, I will give my rebuttal to the objections against Socrates’ elenchus.

Also, that justice is doing the right thing in a society. Justice of contemporary culture does not diverge from the views offered in The Republic and Socrates views are adequate, because if a task is not performed the way it needs to be, and is supposed to be a person should not be rewarded for it. Additionally, that an individual should be just not

I will begin to illustrate what Waldron means by such a right. Before we even look at the meaning of “a right to do wrong”, Waldron clarifies that he is looking at “wrongs” from a moral view not a legal view. “A right to do wrong” means that an action is morally wrong but it is an action that an individual has the moral right to do. It is suggested that an individual should not act in an immoral way but has the choice to do so. Waldron wishes to answer the inconsistencies in the paradox of the moral right to do wrong.

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.

You are in an argument with your friend, would you rather be the one who is winning or the one who actually takes something away from the argument? This was the case for Protagoras and Socrates throughout the text Protagoras. Protagoras represented sophists, while Socrates represented philosophers. A sophist is a teacher of virtue, they twist what is being said to make it positive. They make others into skillful speakers.

By re-examining the text I found that there is a good reason to accept both of these distinctions. He talks of moral beliefs that he accepts but he refuses to consider those beliefs as knowledge. Socratic polices, ethics and method is examined and opinionated through out this paper. Also true and false issues are brought up, and explained in details. This paper is mostly fixated on Socrates way of knowledge and if the method is the correct way of learning and teaching.