No one can truly define what jerk means, as the word jerk, is a word that does not have an official definition. Even so, people know when jerkish behaviors appears. When Dale cuts in line for the bathroom, takes up two parking places, and takes out his bad mood on his partner, it shows how he is a jerk because he shows no concern for other people and believes that no other can be more important than himself. In here, I will be talking about how Schwitzgebel, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus perceive what it means to be just and how being a jerk is unjust. In the article, “Are You a Jerk” by Eric Schwitzgebel, Schwitzgebel talked about how jerk is being a human that devalues other people. “To be a jerk is to be ignorant in a certain way- ignorant of the values of others, ignorant of the merit of their ideas...” (para 12). A jerk doesn’t care or try to understand other people’s worthiness and that they are equal to them, nor will a jerk accept criticism to improve oneself and see what is wrong with their behavior. Dale knew that cutting in …show more content…
Meaning if help is given to friends and harm is given to enemies, then justice exist. According to this definition, being a jerk is unjust because justice means to help friends but jerks doesn’t help friends. Jerks put themselves first and treats their friends and enemies alike. Instead of helping friends, jerks will disrespect friends and cause distress to friends. Dale cuts in line for the bathroom because he believes that his friends are inferior to him and he deserves the bathroom more even when his friends had been in line and are urgent to use the bathroom. Dale also does not care for or try to help his partner recover from the stressful day and instead takes out his anger on his partner who is also a friend. Dale’s action toward his friends is the opposite of helping friends and the opposite of Polemarchus’s definition of
Initially Thrasymachus states that Justice is ‘nothing else but the interest of the stronger’. Cross and Woozley identify four possible interpretations; the Naturalistic definition, Nihilistic view, Incidental comment, and the more useful Essential analysis. The ‘Essential Analysis’: “An action is just if and only if it serves the interest of the stronger,” with Thrasymachus stating the disadvantages of Justice and advantages of Injustice. This leads to problems with the stronger man, is it merely the promotion of self-interests? If Justice favours the interests of the stronger, is this simply from the perception of the weak with morality not concerning the stronger? Cross re-formulates Thrasymachus’s view as ‘Justice is the promotion of the ‘strongers’ interest’, therefore both weak and strong can act justly in furthering the strongers interests. However, complication occurs when we understand that Justice is another’s good: “You are not aware tha...
If one lets someone get away with being mean to someone that does not show bravery or courage at all. One has to stand up for oneself and others to show people one really cares. Danny really likes Mai Thi and stands up for her all of the time. He wants to have a good friendship and relationship with her. He even went on a date with her on Valentine's Day. But in March he did something huge. There were a few eighth graders and one was making fun of Mai Thi so Danny Humfer dumped his lunch tray on him and punched him in the nose. “Until one day, when outside the yellow forsythia branches were weaving themselves together, and the daffodils were playing their trumpets, and the lilacs were starting to bud and getting all giddy, we were going through the lunch line and Mrs. Bigio handed Mai Thi her Tuna Casserole Surprise, and one of the penitentiary-bound eighth graders said loudly to Mrs. Bigio, “Don't you have any Rat Surprise for her?”and then turned to Mai Thi and said, “Why don't you go back home and find some?” and then Mai Thi started to cry, just stood there crying, and Danny took his entire tray- which was filled with Tuna Casserole Surprise and two glasses of chocolate milk and red jello with peaches- and dumped it over the penitentiary-bound eighth grade’s stupid head, and then, before the eighth grader could open his stupid eyes to see had done it, Danny punched him as hard as he could and
...same favors nor appreciate it. Thus, we can finally conclude that being kind and nice can in return be risky and “counter beneficial”.
Justice is described as “a moral concept that is difficult to define, but in essence it means to treat people in ways consistent with
If people were always kind and obedient to those who are cruel and unjust, the wicked people have it all their own way: they would never feel afraid, and so they would have it all their own way: they would never alter, but would grow worse and worse. When we are struck at w...
Once upon a time, there was a little bunny named Harriet, and she loved nothing more than playing with her best friend Alice. Alice lived across the field from Harriet’s burrow. They spent hours nibbling on clover and wiggling their whiskers. Most of all, they loved playing with Harriet’s Wii. One tragic day, the Wii broke. The next day, Harriet waited and waited for Alice to come over to play. Alice did not come that day, nor the next. Alice never came over to play again. Harriet did not know that Alice had found a new friend, with a Wii that worked. When Harriet found out about Alice’s betrayal of their friendship, she wondered: what is a true friend? In an attempt to ease her pain, Harriet got a big bowl of ice cream, and lost herself in reading the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle. There, she discovered that there were actually three different forms of friendship: pleasure, utility and perfection.
Also Plato and Thucydides incorporate the concept that justice is helping one's friends and harming one's enemies. Polemarchus, in The Republics, states that he agrees with Simonides' maxim that it is "just to give each what is owed," (Plato, 331e). This leads to Polemarchus' assertion that that justice is doing good to friends...
To be just or unjust. To be happy or unhappy? Men fall into these two categories. Why does a man act according to these 2 extremes? Is it because they fear punishment? Are they quivering in fear of divine retribution? Or do men do just things because it is good for them to do so? Is justice, good of its rewards and consequences? Or is it good for itself. What is justice? Are the people who are just, just as happy as the people who are unjust? Plato sheds light on these questions and says yes, I have the definition of justice and yes, just people are happy if not happier than unjust people. Plato show’s that justice is worthwhile in and of itself and that being a just person equates to being a happy person. In my opinion, Plato does a good job and is accurate when explaining what it is to be just and this definition is an adequate solution to repairing an unjust person or an unjust city or anything that has an unjust virtue and using the definition of what justice is accurately explains why just people are happier than unjust people.
Also, that justice is a certain type of specialization, meaning that performing a particular task that is a person’s own, not of someone else’s. Plato (2007), Polemarchus argues with Socrates in book I that, “Justice was to do good to a friend and harm to an enemy” (335b p.13). Plato (2007) he then responds, “It is not the function of the just man to harm either his friends or anyone else, but of his opposite the unjust man” (335d p.14). His views of justice are related to contemporary culture, because when someone does something that they are supposed to do, they receive credit or a reward for it, but if the opposite of that is performed, by not doing the particular task that is asked, they are then rewarded but with punishments. 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
This is particularly interesting with reference to the aforementioned passage, as there is no reference to which form of justice Aristotle is referring when he says “when men are friends they have no need of justice” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1155a). Earlier in the text, Aristotle delineates two forms of justice: a justice that is “a part of virtue”, or “particular justice”, and a justice “that is not part of virtue but the whole of virtue [...] but their essence is not the same” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1130a-b). The second form of justice is a more universal form of justice, differentiated from virtue as the exterior consequence of an interior quality of being virtuous. When Aristotle says that “when men are friends they have no need of justice”, he is likely referring to the first form of justice, the particular justice, which is itself broken down into four other types: distributive, rectificatory, reciprocal and equity. All four of these types of justices explain how it is that people should engage in transactions with one another, and how these transactions and engagements should be corrected. When people are friends, the idea that they have no need for justice simply means there is no need for a corrective form of justice, as all transactions made between friends—individuals who share concern and wish well-being for one another—should innately be done in a just fashion. Aristotle does not suggest that “when men are friends they have no need for [universal] justice”, nor does he suggest that abiding by the particular form of justice is unnecessary in the basest forms of
As the novel progresses, the character named Jack displays how humans are bad. Jack becomes a savage, as he no longer wants to be a part of society. He demonstrates acts of violence during the story. “Viciously, with full intention, he hurled his spear at Ralph” (Golding 181). Jack uses his natural instincts and feelings to attempt to harm Ralph. This horrid act
Thrasymachus’s definition of justice is incoherent and hard to conceptualize within the context of the debate. What remains unclear is Thrasymachus’s ideal definition of justice. At first, Thrasymachus definition of justice after passage 338c remains disputable. Justice, Thrasymachus states, “… is simply what is good for the stronger” (338c). Therefore, on its own, this statement could infer that, what can benefit the stronger is just and therefore can be beneficial to the weaker as well. Therefore Thrasymachus definition can be taken in different contexts and used to one’s discretion. Additionally, Thrasymachus changes his definition of justice multiple times during the discussion. Thrasymachus states t...
Thrasymachus believes that the definition that justice is what is advantageous for the stronger. Thrasymachus definition quote
All around us people are cruel and rude, this can harm someone else's life, just as it made life for John Nash more difficult. This difficulty can limit our ability to try and determine our future. As shown, the ability to show kindness can help others determine their future as they are not being put down. Constant negativity can damper the livelihood, which damages our ability to put our best out into the world and fulfil our man made
Jane doe noted that she always she’s herself as a pleaser she lives to see smiles on people faces. She said” while growing up I was always the nice girl; I don’t think I have a mean bone in my body. My feelings are hurt easily and I figured if I’m always nice others will be nice to me as well.” Kohlberg ,1971 Third stage Interpersonal Correspondence “Nice –boy/Good-girl” explains nice behaviors help others gain approval from others. Being nice to others becomes important for the first time. Jane doe also expressed how she feels about showing others respect especially her close family. She explained that her father drilled in her the importance of showing respect to her elders and how important it is to show respect by answering yes ma’am/sir and no ma’am/ sir when speaking to an Authority figure. This is an example of Kohlbergs,1971 fourth stage Law and Order which suggest that the right behavior consists of doing one duty of showing respect for authority and maintaining the given social order for its own