Plato's Argument For A Just Life Plato's argument for the benefits of a just life is intrinsically linked to his definition of good and its relation to people's desires. He begins by showing that when the objective of a desire is simple (e.g. quenching a thirst), the desire must be correspondingly simple. Since thirst is a simple desire, the man's objective must also be simplistic and should we assign an adjective to his objective, we would falsely complicate it. In addition, Plato believes that we would be seriously erring if we assign a value of good to an desire.
Socrates responds by saying, what Simonides meant was we give back to people what is appropriate for them, or owed to them. Polemarchus said to be consistent with what I said earlier it has to be the art of giving benefit and harm to friends and enemies respectively. Socrates makes a point that morality only seems to be useful when something is not being used, for example when money needs to be saved. Socrates asks if a moral person can harm anyone and Polemarchus agreed that a moral person could harm an evil man. What Socrates was trying to get at was well if this man was really moral why is he trying to harm anyone.
Ultimately, safeguarding both the people and thereby the society that benefit is what makes the unpleasant experience good. The statement that symbolizes akrasia is that a person who knows the bad is bad, does it because they are overwhelmed by pleasure and the a person who knows the good to be good, refuses to do it because of the immediate pleasure. Socrates maintains that this argument uses too many names; he suggest reducing it to a matter of “good” and “bad” and then “pleasure” and “pain” (355c1). In the new statement, the words pleasure and good will be interchangeable as will pain and bad. This is the argument that follows: A ... ... middle of paper ... ... that are closer; inability to discern which of these is actually the greatest is ignorance.
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.
His avoidance of worldly pleasures is an excess of self-restraint that keeps him from the moral mean between pleasure and self-restraint. In this view, he is sacrificing balance for excess, and is no different from a drunkard who cannot moderate his desire for alcohol. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle says that virtue and happiness come from achieving the moral mean. The moral mean is the midpoint between deficiency and excess in any particular behavior. For example, the moral mean of recklessness and cowardice is courage.
He had already shown in his earlier discourse with Polus that there is a difference between what is pleasing and what is good; a person sees a practitioner of medicine even if doing so offers no pleasure because the outcome is good. Considering that a person can seek pleasure whose outcome could be bad, it makes sense that acting for the sake of pleasure itself is fool hearted, and fools who seek to experience pleasure regardless of outcome, as Socrates explains, are like a sieve because they lack the
Someone may be unjust and they can completely agree because they are reaping the benefits from being unjust versus when they were a just person, they just haven’t experienced the consequences of being unjust. I also believe that there are people who would be unjust if no consequences followed, but I think that there are more honorable people in our world simply because they choose to be.
Polemarchus give his definition of justice to "treat friends well and enemies badly." Socrates argues this by stating, "people often make mistakes about this, believing many people to be good and useful when they aren't and making the opposite mistake about enemies." pointing out that judgment concerning friends is fallible and could end up harming the good and hurting the bad. Thrasymachus defines justice as "nothing other than the advantage of the stronger ....A just man gets less that an unjust one." This shows how justice does not benefit people.
That person made a choice and I firmly believe actions can be voluntary and feelings playing a role with action as Aristotle believe. Subsequently, Socrates and Aristotle each had their concepts for their approach of weakness of will and each had their differences. Weakness of will in general is not moral, neither is it cruel. The difference between an incontinent person who knows what is right and strives for it but chooses pleasure versus a intemperate person who persistently seeks excessive pleasure (Kemerling). I argue for Aristotle’s view rather than Socrates because it is more practical in human decision making when we are weak to our decisions unlike Socrates belief of it not being possible because of ignorance because I believe we know even when there are bad actions of our decisions and that they are not a result of ignorance.
Plato’s Republic focuses on one particular question: is it better to be just or unjust? Thrasymachus introduces this question in book I by suggesting that justice is established as an advantage to the stronger, who may act unjustly, so that the weak will “act justly” by serving in their interests. Therefore, he claims that justice is “stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice” (Plato, Republic 344c). Plato begins to argue that injustice is never more profitable to a person than justice and Thrasymachus withdraws from the argument, granting Plato’s response. Glaucon, however, is not satisfied and proposes a challenge to Plato to prove that justice is intrinsically valuable and that living a just life is always superior.