Glaucon’s three examples prefer injustice, and he gives examples of the acceptance of injustice over justice. The only factual foundation that his argument holds, is that sometimes we let our wants and desires muffle our conscience. Sometimes we make bad decisions even though our conscience tells us it’s bad, but we ignore it because we desire our wants. Everyone will have their own views on this, but it really varies upon each person. 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.
Therefore, justice is determined to be intrinsically valuable from the negative intrinsic value of injustice that was demonstrated, as well as from parts of the soul working together correctly. Glaucon also wants Plato to show that a just life is better than an unjust life. It has been shown that when the soul is in harmony, it only acts justly. It is in a person’s best interests to have a healthy soul, which is a just soul, so that the person can be truly happy. This means that by showing justice has an intrinsic value, it can also be concluded that it is better to live a just life opposed to an unjust life.
With this concession, he makes the point that good is that which preserves and benefits. Justice is good, so it therefore preserves and benefits in this life as well as the next. Therefore, even though a man may w... ... middle of paper ... ... strive fore, it is my belief that all people are immoral, and strives to become less immoral. So which is more beneficial Morality or immorality? A just person is happier than the unjust person for this reason, which the just person's soul is in order, whereas the unjust person's soul is in decay and disorder.
This thought concept is not valid, because I believe that everyone has the capacity of feeling sorrow and enjoyment, and it can’t be used to confirm if someone has a good life or a bad life. Bravery comes in the absence of one being a coward, just like good comes in the absence of bad, however someone who is brave can experience both pain and pleasure. Someone who is brave or intelligent might be seen as superior in society, but that is because they have more respect and have proved their worth. It doesn’t mean that they have more pleasures in their life. Works Cited Plato, and Donald J. Zeyl.
In fact, I would say finding happiness from a good action would make a person better than if they were only doing the action for a duty and because they felt they had to. Besides this imperfection to the theory, there are many others that prove deontology is severely flawed and cannot be taken
In contrast, Socrates’s wisdom has to do with the craft, meaning that a person has wisdom in a particular craft.it is not difficult to imagine a person who is an expert in one subject but clueless when it comes to making deals, in such a way that he end up losing more when making deals with clever people in deal dealing and unjust. Socrates makes his point that money is not more valuable than the happiness that comes from living well. This means that, even though, the unjust can get more money and power in the expense of true happiness. The wise will consider true happiness more valuable than money and won’t give in to the temptations of money and power. Although I must admit that Socrates does not explicitly make these points his argument is insufficient with them.
The first is said to be appetite (which desires without reason) and reason (which considers the consequences). Reason may thus work against anything that is not for the total good of the man. Plato holds that if the desire were truly for a good drink, reason would never oppose it. Our usage of the word good, however, has come to denote an expectation of usefulness to our purpose; although this may be relative to the end result that we experience from the object. For example, we call a knife good because it is sharp and cuts well but if the end result is that we cut ourselves, we would say that the knife would have been better if it
Mill’s critics would likely say that Utilitarianism as a whole can function to create selfish people because all are striving towards a life of more pleasure than pain, but Mill shuts this down with the idea of happiness being impartial. Basically, a person must choose an action that yields the most happiness or pleasure, whether that pleasure is for them or not. Mill would recognize that, “Among the qualitatively superior ends are the moral ends, and it is in this that people acquire the sense that they have moral intuitions superior to mere self-interest” (Wilson). By this, it is meant that although people are supposed to take action that will produce the greatest pleasure, the do not do so in a purely selfish manner. Mill goes on to argue that the happiness of individuals is interconnected; therefore one cannot be selfish in such a way.
Nina Monroe 16 April 2002 Philosophy: Ethics 6. What arguments are offered by Plato and Aristotle that the just life is happier that the unjust one? Do you find these convincing? Why or why not? The Happy Life “So don’t merely give us a theoretical argument that justice is stronger than injustice, but tell us what each itself does, because of its own powers, to someone who possesses it, and that makes injustice bad and justice good”.1 In this quote from Plato’s Republic, Adeimantus challenges Socrates to demonstrate that justice is good in itself, and ultimately, to prove that the just life is the happiest life for a human being.
At this point in the novel I saw Thrasymachus’s flaw and also the reason why Socrates has silenced Thrasymachus. Injustice, in my opinion, may be better as a short-term plan for pleasure, but in the long run the unjust man will be condemned by just men of his evil deeds, thus leading to his downf... ... middle of paper ... ...nally, Socrates points out that, in his perfect State, philosophers will always have the advantage over other types of rulers because they have wisdom and knowledge, which gives them the ability to govern justly and wisely. In my opinion, Socrates’s perfect State sounded plenty like the scenario progressing in the debate. Socrates, since he is a great philosopher, had the advantage over everyone because he was wise and intelligent in his arguments; therefore he obviously knew more about justice than anyone else. So, in conclusion, Socrates won the debate on the definition of justice.