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. This paper will explain Glaucon’s challenge to Plato regarding the value of justice, followed by Plato’s response in which he argues that his theory of justice, explained by three parts of the soul, proves the intrinsic value of justice and that a just life is preeminent. Finally, it will be shown that Plato’s response succeeds in answering Glaucon’s challenge. Glaucon begins his argument to Plato by separating goods into three classes. The first class is composed of intrinsic goods that we welcome for our own sake, stripped of their consequences, such as happiness.
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 argument to support this is found in moral intelligence and the want to do the best... ... middle of paper ... ... doing what we want when the outcome is wicked. Moral goodness is a form of knowledge to him, and that knowledge is necessary in order to do well. It is the good that we strive to achieve by doing what we see fit, but if we do what we see fit and actually create a wicked outcome we are not truly doing what we want. In order to do what we want we must have the knowledge of moral goodness to do what is right, and not to inflict suffering on someone else.
However, he distinguishes between perceived self-interest and actual self-interest and argues that any apparent conflict between rationality and morality is simply a conflict between one's perceived self-interest and the requirements of justice. Pursuing of one's actual self-interest never conflicts with the demands of morality. Since, for Plato, it is more rational to pursue one's real, than one's apparent, self-interest, rationality and morality do not conflict. It is rational to be moral. Plato rejects the contractarian reconciliation of morality with individual rationality primarily because the thinks that the contractarian conception assumes that a person's motives for being just are necessarily based her self-interest, while our concept of the just person holds that to be truly just one must value justice for its own sake.
Even if we are fighting urges, we’re still not content, and that means we are not at peace. Paul offers a good framework because we definitely shouldn’t kill people or steal, but if we simply follow those rules to appease others, then how are we living our best individual lives? Plato’s conception of the good life is broader; it is all about being one with our true natures. If we live up to our natures’ potential, then we’ve fulfilled our individual goals for happiness to be achieved. True happiness is contentment with our natures according to Plato, and that makes much more sense to the individual and reason for a good life.
In Plato’s Republic, the main argument is dedicated to answering Glaucon and Adeimantus, who question the reason for just behavior. They argue it is against one’s self-interest to be just, but Plato believes the behavior is in fact in one’s self-interest because justice is inherently good. Plato tries to prove this through his depiction of an ideal city, which he builds from the ground up, and ultimately concludes that justice requires the philosopher to perform the task of ruling. Since the overall argument is that justice pays, it follows that it would be in the philosopher’s self-interest to rule – however, Plato also states that whenever people with political power believe they benefit from ruling, a good government is impossible. Thus, those who rule regard the task of ruling as not in their self-interest, but something intrinsically evil.
In this essay I will explain Kant's reasoning behind his statement that the only true good, without qualification, is the good will, and consequentially determine whether his idea of good varies from the Platonic ideal of goodness. In Kant's development of his theory he relied upon the faculty of human reason to demonstrate his hypotheses. He begins by inquiring as to the ultimate purpose of human reason. He considers for a moment that man's reason exists to bring happiness, however he quickly nullifies this assumption with a common sense judgment: We find that the more cultivated reason devotes itself to the aim of enjoying life and happiness, the further does man get away from true contentment. .
These souls would only stray further from the good and corrupt their realities further, living contently but never happily. Based on Plato’s model of justice, therefore, it is just to prevent these souls from reincarnation. We then understand that justice is the search for knowledge and its beauty through reason and virtue. Once we have found the good, we continue to use reason and knowledge to remain just. We do this because no other condition results in a better life in this one or the next.
Kant does not believe reaching happiness is the main goal of life, but instead doing good with a sense of duty is. Kant says, “A good will is good not because of what it effects or accomplishes… it is good only through its willing, i.e., it is good in itself” (Kant, First Section). Kant’s claim is very strong because it doesn’t allow for any adaptations. From this, he creates two imperatives, the hypothetical and the categorical. Following the categorical imperatives is what eventually will make one virtuous because they are universal laws or commands to being
Before anything else, I will try to simplify (and I may be incurring in error) the difference between Mencius and Xunzi. According to the videos and readings here exposed, the explicit is simple: Mencius sees human nature as intrinsically good, while Xunzi sees it as intrinsically bad. Both agree in the crucial point that, being it good or bad, there is an urging need to cultivate virtue in human nature. If it is good, as in the Mencius' case, it needs to be cultivated in order to not be lost, and I dare to say, in order to better it. Likewise in the case of Xunzi, being it bad, it needs to be cultivated for the obvious reason of making it good, otherwise it would not be possible to live a harmonious life in a harmonious society, and the men's own impulse to cultivate it comes from its own intrinsically bad nature, since from Xunzi's point of view, men seek what they don't have.
An Intellectual Knowledge of Good in Plato’s Republic Socrates might be a wise philosopher but one of his ideas strikes me as particularly naive. In the allegory of the cave, he tells Glaucon that "in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort [·] and that this is the power upon which he [the intellectual] would act rationally" (517b-c). In other words, he seems to be implying that knowledge of goodness is a sufficient condition for being good. A person who has seen what goodness is will henceforth act in a way that is good. Is this belief justified?