The lifestyle of the guardians must be so carefully controlled, Socrates argues, in order to create the perfect, self-perpetuating ruling class. Those outside of the ruling class, then, would lack both the natural propensity and the lifestyle and resulting mindset to be involved in politics. Politics is highly exclusive for Socrates, because politics creates and enforces the existing class structure, which allows his notion of justice to
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.
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.
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.
As rational beings we are expected to act and behave accordingly for the sake of the moral good, but with practical reason. This then results in universal morality according to Kant. This was all defined under Kant’s categorical imperative. These imperatives are things that one “ought” to do according to Kant. Kant believed that following ones duty was not measurable by the end means, yet it “is good only through its willing”.
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.
Plato says, "to become a good guardian, a man must be by nature fast, strong, and a spirited philosopher" (Plato 376e). He believes the people he describes as best suited to rule would be philosophers; this is due to their ability to stop and rationally access a citation with a nonpartisan view. The philosopher guardians would be capable of counter balancing the greed of the citizens of the state. Plato s... ... middle of paper ... ...e “another doctrine repugnant to civil society, is that whatsoever a man does against his conscience, is sin; and it dependeth on the presumption of making himself judge of good and evil” (Hobbes pt. 2 Ch.
Socrates attempts to show that certain beliefs and attitudes of justice and its nature are inadequate or inconsistent, and present a way in which those views about justice are to be overcome. Traditionally justice was regarded as one of the cardinal virtues; to avoid injustices and to deal equitable with both equals and inferiors was seen as what was expected of the good man, but it was not clear how the benefits of justice were to be reaped. Socrates wants to persuade from his audience to adopt a way of estimating the benefits of this virtue. From his perspective, it is the quality of the mind, the psyche organization which enables a person to act virtuously. It is this opposition between the two types of assessment of virtue that is the major theme explored in Socrates’ examination of the various positions towards justice.
He theorized that the soul was divided into three parts: appetite, spirit, and reason. Reason, being the most important, should rule over the other two. In cases where spirit and appetite did rule over reason, Plato diagnosed that an imperfect society would be created, thus influencing individuals who contribute to the unjust society. The only way to fix this problem is for an elite group known as the Guardians to arise through education. The Guardians would be able to justly rule society without the greed for power, creating the perfect society.
The story he tells during the dialogue about the creation of people was to demonstrate that a division within the community is necessary for the community to work well. John Rawls sees freedom in a community as good, however this freedom can cause an unbalance when people choose to belong in the job that they are not fit for. I hold that the divisions of classes Socrates mention in the story, and some of the answers he gave to his friends to explain how a moral political community should be are better than John Rawls' ideas of freedom. So, I see Socrates not contradicting himself, by saying that a community well formed has everything it takes to be good.FootnotesPlato's, Republic, tran. Robin Waterfield (New York, Oxford University Press, 1993)John Rawls', Political liberalism, ed.