Adeimantus Vs Greek

Kant argues that mere conformity with the moral law is not sufficient for moral goodness. I will argue that Kant is right. In this essay I will explain why Kant distinguishes between conforming with the moral law and acting for the sake of the moral law, and what that distinction means to Kant, before arguing why Kant was right.

One of the central claims of Plato’s Republic is that justice is not only desirable for its own sake, but that it maximises the happiness of those who practice it. This paper examines Plato’s arguments in support of this thesis to determine (a) what he means by happiness, (b) to what extent it exists in his proposed ideal state, and (c) whether this in any way substantiates his claims about the benefits of justice. In particular, I will argue that there are two different conceptions of happiness at play in The Republic, and two methods of achieving its highest form, namely the pursuit of justice and philosophy, before arriving at a final definition of

King categorizes law into two types: just and unjust. He describes a just law as a “man-made code” that falls in line with moral law while an unjust law is one that deviates from moral law. King claims that just laws can uplift people while unjust ones degrade them. In stating these ideas, King provides his audience with his own definition of what laws are and what they can do. The reader can now apply this definition to attain a better understanding of King’s ideology and better connect with King’s larger purpose of the letter. King also examines laws that in method are fair but in practice are oppressive. This helps make his definition be more complete by presenting a multitude of ways a law can be unjust. He shows that laws can be unjust in writing and in application. King explains his criteria for just and unjust laws in order to move his argument forward in answering the criticisms of his fellow clergymen.

Furthermore, King connects with his audience when he criticizes the unjust segregation laws. When accused of having a desire to break laws, King immediately disproves that theory by agreeing with their concern, and then discusses the difference between just and unjust laws. He quotes St. Thomas Aquinas faultlessly when he states his thoughts on law: "Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality" (222). He continues to say that a person has a "moral responsibility" (221) to refuse to comply with unjust laws, as well as having an obligation to obey just laws. His statement forces his readers to put themselves in his shoes and think of their moral responsibility to stand up against unjust laws regardless of

An unjust law is a code that a majority inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself. This difference made legal. On the other hand, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow, and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. ”(pg5/6 par.14)

Human nature drives individuals to define the most perplexing concepts; however, understanding the true meaning refers to more than its denotation. The definition of justice proves to be a conflicting view point, dating back to Socrates’s attempted explanation in Plato’s The Republic. Within the first book, Socrates finds himself exposing the flaws behind three definitions of justice proposed by the traditionalists of Athens. Through Socrates’s ridicule of physical attributes equating to justice, he disproves these perceived virtues and conveys the necessity for a lack of physicality.

In the Republic of Plato, three separate individuals present the definition of justice in three distinct ways. Thrasymachus, states that justice is the advantage or what is beneficial of the stronger. Although Thrasymachus’s claim is true to an extent, the logic falls short when the question of fallibility of government comes into play as well as the art’s role in society.

Therefore, Unjust speech doesn’t believe in justice. Essentially, Just speech advocates moderation in all things, respect of elders and traditions, a good reputation, and the gods. Unjust speech believes that moderation is evil, respect of elders and traditions is unnecessary, a good reputation is not needed, and the gods don’t exist. Fundamentally, Just and Unjust speech are polar opposites of one

A law is said to be just when it is ordained for the common good, does not exceed the power of the lawgiver and any burdens put on the subjects are done proportionally and equally and aim for the common good (Aquinas in Dimock, ed., 2002, p.20). In comparison an unjust law can be contrary to the human good and additionally opposing to the divine good. A law can conflict with the human good in one of three ways; either through its end, author or its form. A lawmaker issues an unjust law according to its end when he “imposes on his subjects burdensome laws, conducive not to the common good, but rather to his own cupidity or vainglory” (Aquinas in Dimock, ed., 2002, p.20). If a lawmaker imposes a law that favors the leader but at the same time imposes unfair burdens on the whole of society, it can be assumed that he is working for his glory and selfish desires.

Among the virtues, Cicero grants precedence to the fellowship of men and deems justice “the most illustrious of the virtues, on account of which men are called ‘good’” (9). Consequently, Cicero enumerates in detail the ways in which one can exemplify this virtue, so as to be considered a good man. The duties of justice concern themselves “with preserving fellowship among men, with assigning to each his own, and with faithfulness to agreements one has made” (7). For the political man, maintaining community among citizens is the foremost duty of justice. As to the subliminal caveat for the populace, which allows one to determine the justness of a man, Cicero posits, “on the question of keeping faith, you must always think of what you meant, not of what you said” (18). Furthermore, of injustice, Cicero asserts, “nothing deserves punishment more than that of men who, just at the time when they are most betraying trust, act in such a way that they might appear to be good men” (19). This interpolation, as Cicero completes the doctrine concerning justice, portends the purpose of his third virtue.

‘Must we only obey a just law; should we obey a law because it is just to do so; or else can we not obey at all?'

It is better to be morally just than unjust because it makes one better, as a person. I believe that a morally just person, will get good things in return. The consequences of doing good are more favorable than those of not being good. Being good means being a good citizen. It is important that we do good things because we will gain approval from people that are important to us. Being congratulated is better than being scorned because it makes one feel satisfied. However, regardless of reward, it is better to be a good person, than a bad person “And this, then, is the genesis and being of justice: it is a mean between what is best—doing injustice without paying the penalty—and what is worst—suffering injustice without being able to avenge oneself" (359a). Even though bad things happen to good people, and bad people seem to get away with things, the just person is most likely happier. Good people are loved, and respected. Bad people, are typically lonely. One should do the action that results in the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest number of people. This is because it is morally right to benefit as many people as possible. While it is better to be a just person, many people are not. Many people believe that there are excuses as to why they can behave unjustly.

“[Justice] is normally put into the painful category, of goods which we pursue for the rewards they bring and in the hope of a good reputation, but which in themselves are to be avoided as unpleasant” [443c]. According to Plato, justice is a way of life where there are two types of falsehoods that both play a role in creating and maintaining justice. The distinction he makes between beneficial and improper lies is that a beneficial lie is justifiable because it is for the greater good of keeping justice in society; an improper lie is one that has a negative effect even though it is attempting to create justice. To uphold a “just city,” Plato believes justice highly depends upon the state propagation of these falsehoods through limiting the

Plato in what we spoke of about, talked about what was three people’s ideas of what they thought justice meant. The first said that justice was “giving a person what is owed”. The second response was “doing good to friends and bad to enemies”. The third person said that justice was “advantage of the stronger. However, Plato’s definition of

Plato’s view of justice ties in with his view of a perfect world. In Plato’s ideal world, the society would be a wise one, wise in