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 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. In order to be morally sound it is better to receive the suffering at the hands of another than inflict injustice on us and become miserable. Though Polus does not want to accept this Socrates, in the end, brings him to his side. So though there are many questions that are left hanging in the balance from this argument, Socrates point is clear that it is better morally to receive injustice than to inflict it.
Deontologists create concrete distinctions between what is moral right and wrong and use their morals as a guide when making choices. Deontologists generate restrictions against maximizing the good when it interferes with moral standards. Also, since deontologists place a high value on the individual, in some instances it is permissible not to maximize the good when it is detrimental to yourself. For example, one does not need to impoverish oneself to the point of worthlessness simply to satisfy one’s moral obligations. Deontology can be looked at as a generally flexible moral theory that allows for self-interpretation but like all others theories studied thus far, there are arguments one can make against its reasoning.
Determinism, or the acceptance of living in accord with events outside of our control is a key feature of Stoic theory. This strict determinism allows Stoics to distance themselves from encumbering emotional reactions that are often associated with negative or positive outcomes. A stoic would attempt to dissuade a non-sage from engaging in emotions because they lack the capacity of assenting strictly to kataleptic impressions because emotions negatively effect their beliefs. In order to behave in accordance with this logic it requires a rejection of common emotions. Ordinary emotions such as pleasure and fear are considered false impression, which contribute to a bad mental state.
‘“Cultural relativism implies that another common place of moral life illusion moral disagreement, and such inconsistencies hint that there may be something amiss with relativism. It seems it conflicts violently with common sense realities of the moral life. The doctrine implies that each person is morally infallible”’ (Vaughn 14). Rachels states that, “cultural relativism would not only forbid us from criticizing the codes of other societies; it would stop us from criticizing our own” (Rachels 700). However, there are some reasons one may accept relativism and it is because it is a comforting position.
People would have no proof if the person lied or not. In the end, I believe that Kantianism is still a valuable guide to behavior. The theory wants humanity to do the right thing, whatever the right thing might be, and if it brings satisfaction, then it is a bonus but satisfaction cannot be the premise of doing an action. However, Kantianism also has its flaws on what someone should do in a given situation and ultimately, causing the theory to self-contridict. As any theory, it is a good guideline but it should never dictated one's life.
The laws are just and to disobey them would be unjust. In view of his beliefs of living a jut “good” life I feel Socrates was ethically correct by refusing to escape from prison.
The number one problem associated with self deception is that it has the capability of creating moral dilemmas, such that people use it as a "prophylactic against leaning from experience," according to Dalrymple. Because one knowingly deceives oneself into believing something even in the face of strong evidence to the contrary. The main driver of self deception is self interest. Due to our concern for our own well being we choose to believe and hold certain beliefs. Dalrymples argument is that by refraining from making judgements we are refusing to evaluating what is acceptable in a society and we let certain behaviors such as crime and brutality to flourish.
Like Rauch says, people must not try to eradicate hate speech, rather criticize and try to correct it. There is no wrong in standing up for yourself but there is an enormous wrong in limiting speech, hateful or not. V. Conclusion If it wasn’t already obvious, I believe that Altman is wrong. I believe that strengthening the proverbial skin of society is more important that pitting it’s individuals against each other on issues of what’s ok and not ok to say. Altman appeals to his own morals in which giving individuals the equality that is due to them and the right to not be treated as a lesser member of society are of ultimate importance.
He claims that acting "morally" serves the ruling party because the ruling party designed the legal structure for its own benefit. Socrates raises some criticisms, especially the criticism showing that people behaving immorally would not be able to act in concert with others and would fall out with others, which are compelling and discredit Thrasymachus' position. From this it is conclusive that Thrasymachus has not entirely captured the essence of human nature.