Human Nature and Moral Theory in Plato’s Republic Essay

Glaucon sees the issue from the perspective of personal gain or loss, while Plato sees it from outside that realm in the sphere of absolute truths. Clearly, an absolute truth is more viable and defensible than a personal interest. Justice is a higher order than personal advantage and as is associated with happiness whether one receives a reward for justice or not. The argument Glaucon raises against the absolutism of justice is exemplified in his story of the man who discovers a gold ring that allows him to become invisible. Glaucon proposes these two representative men as extreme examples of the two sides of the argument and suggests that their positions be examined after their death to see which was happier, based on the premise that the unjust man meted out injustice at will without ever suffering it himself, while the just man acted only justly but was treated unjustly himself. Glaucon takes this example to the extreme, with the just man being: “whipped...racked...bound; he'll have both his eyes burned out; and at the end, when he has undergone every sort of evil, he'll be crucified and know that one shouldn't wish to be, but to seem to be, just” (39). Glaucon sets these two men at extremes to prove his point-that happiness does not come from being

In evaluating Socrates ' success in arguing against Thrasymachus ' account, it is imperative to begin by appreciating Socrates ' intentions and the place of Thrasymachus ' account within that goal. As the literary director of Republic, Plato is well-positioned to articulate any arguments contained in Republic to his advantage, and I suggest that he very much does. Further, although Socrates is but Plato 's literary vehicle in Republic, for the sake of clarity I shall attribute and refer to arguments and views expressed throughout as belonging to Socrates.

In addition to his definition, Thrasymachus argues the value of justice as a human or societal characteristic, claiming that injustice is far more beneficial to the individual. Thrasymachus asserts that tyranny:

First, throughout Book I, Plato seems to portray Thrasymachus as a vigorous character who wants to overcome and achieve rhetorical victory over Socrates. As Plato illustrates, “Even in the middle of our conversation Thrasymachus had repeatedly tried to take control of the discussion” (Plato, 336b) and as soon as Socrates ends his discussion in finding the true definition of justice with Polemarchus, “he gathered himself and sprang at us, like a wild beast at its prey” and enters into the discussion (Rep. 336b). However, unlike his zeal to achieve victory over Socrates, Thrasymachus is continuously rebutted by Socrates which views Thrasymachus’ arguments inconsistent and self-contradictory for his definition of justice. Initiating his discussion with Socrates, Thrasymachus brings up his account of justice. Thrasymachus insists, “I say that justice is simply what is good for the stronger” (Rep. 338c). Also, later on in his discussion with Socrates, he provides another claim for his view of justice, that “justice and the

Morality is likely the most debated topic of all time, especially in regards to our moral responsibility for each other. Throughout history many writers and philosophers have taken different angles the concept of morality and have applied it in many ways. This includes: Niccolò Machiavelli with The Prince (we will be looking at The Qualities of the Prince) and Plato with The Republic (we will be looking at the section The Allegory of the Cave. The Prince (1513) essentially lays out a how-to guide of how to obtain power and how to keep it; The Qualities of the Prince contains a list of qualities that one should appear to have while in power; this work will be used to represent the case against moral responsibility for others. The Republic

In Plato's Republic, Glaucon is introduced to the reader as a man who loves honor, sex, and luxury. As The Republic progresses through books and Socrates' arguments of how and why these flaws make the soul unhappy began to piece together, Glaucon relates some of these cases to his own life, and begins to see how Socrates' line of reasoning makes more sense than his own. Once Glaucon comes to this realization, he embarks on a path of change on his outlook of what happiness is, and this change is evidenced by the way he responds during he and Socrates' discourse.

Thrasymachus states that those who abide by/follow the norms and laws of society are put at a distinct disadvantage. “Justice is to the advantage of the stronger,” (Pg. 1). The sophist Anton stated that we ought to be unjust when being unjust is to our advantage. Those who behave unjustly gain money, power and respect in society. This is so because the laws have no true value, the rulers create the laws to enforce their own beliefs onto their people. “Each form of government creates unique laws that are to their own advantage. Democracy makes democratic laws; tyranny makes tyrannical law, and so on.” (Pg. 15) Therefore, justice is the advantage of the established rule. The laws of society do not represent what is just and unjust, because of that, we don’t have a true understanding of justice and laws as a society. Thrasymachus believes that in order to make laws that are beneficial to all, we must abandon the old method and start from scratch, without

In Plato’s The Republic, Socrates expresses his belief that in order for a state and its people to be functioning at their best, every citizen ought to do what they have the most character for, or what they are most qualified to do. Whether it is craftsmanship, guarding the city, playing music, or healing the sick, Socrates thinks that everyone should make his or her living doing one thing that they are skilled at, and one thing only. In order to ensure that only the best guardians are guarding the state, and only the most fit to rule become rulers, and so on, Socrates proposes the myth of the metals. He says to Glaucon that such an “audacious fiction” is necessary to convince the people that their livelihoods are beyond their choice and out of their control. The myth of the metals contains various invented truths, the first being that the state does not educate or train any citizen in their youth; instead, it is the earth that cultivates each person’s characteristics and skills. In this way, everyone has different inherent talents that are specially selected by God. God mingles gold into those who have the power to command others and who have claim to the greatest honor in society. He makes others with silver, which He deems best fit to guard the city as auxillaries, or soldiers. And finally, He composes the craftsmen, farmers, and other common citizens with brass and iron. God commands the rulers of the state to

The introduction deals mainly with a twofold question: first what is justice? Second, why should we be just? He answers the first one as follow: justice is indeed both wisdom and virtue. He said that it is injustice that produces factions, hatreds, and quarrels among themselves, and justice that produce unanimity and friendship. He also said that justice is virtue of the soul.

Thrasymachus’s view is that “morality is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger party”. He states that this is what justice is and justice in this sense is right and wrong. He states that morality is to the advantage of the current government, so in a sense he is saying that the government/ person of power has the right to make laws to determine whether something is right or wrong and the ruled have to follow these laws. To say it in one sentence, justice is the tool that is used to make the ruled work for the benefit of the strong. I think that Thraysmachus’s believes that the very core of morality consists in the powerhouse of the current government because they can rule and force their interests upon the ruled. So Socrates tries

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? For instance, we sometimes do things that we know are not good but we do them nonetheless and feel guilty after that. If, as such cases

Plato’s Republic is actually an account that Plato transcribed that involved Socrates and a few guests. First they discuss the merits of old age but the subject changes to justice. You have a few different takes on the definition of justice. Cephalus a rich, well-respected elder of the city who is a business man. His is the first to give a definition. The he leaves and his son finishes the definition. Socrates uses common since to disprove this definition. Thrasymachus who is a sophist, a teacher and someone who thinks they have wisdom but only has knowledge. Thrasymachus says justice is the strong surviving, which Socraties disproves. The topic of discussion is Justice and it is the main human experience in this text.

In Plato’s Republic, Socrates begins a debate on the definition of justice. It starts off as a simple discussion on what justice means to some people. Eventually the discussion moves on how justice comes about it in an ideal city. Socrates eventually comes to the idea that an ideal city must have four virtues. These virtues happen to be: courage, wisdom, moderation, and justice. However, the only two virtues that applies to the city as a whole is justice and moderation. Whereas, courage is associated in the warriors and wisdom is associated with the rulers. Justice can not be found where moderation does not appear. According to Plato, justice is one of the main causes of happiness. There is no justice without moderation, and there is no happiness without justice. Therefore, moderation is important for the city and the individual to have to be just.

In modern moral philosophy there are four major points. The first is Relativism, which is the doctrine that morals are a matter solely of personal opinion. There is an objection to it that is to society, it is freighting to have someone live by this concept. There is also the moral point of view. With this there can be some common consent. Most modern philosophers look for the same thing as Plato, the common reason moral principle. The first idea about this is that we must at least be capable of non-selfish motives. Kant, a German philosopher, was from the 1800s. He proposed that the moral principle could be built from a widely accepted religious belief. For instance, the Golden Rule, which means act the way you want to be treated. There is a flaw to that rule though. The Sado Masochist is a person who enjoys to be hurt. If they would follow the Golden Rule, they would be treating others by inflicting pain. Kant notes that motives should then be focused on. To do this the motives would need to be universalized. Consider a Sado and possible his girlfriend. The Sado would want the girlfriend to cause him pain but the girlfriend would possible want to be kind and affectionate. Another way of viewing this would be using the veil of ignorance. By using this, the difference between the victim and the aggressor is indistinguishable and that way you could be put into someone else’s shoes.

The sources I will utilize in this investigation will range from primary sources such as Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and Euclid’s six books entitled Euclid’s elements to secondary sources from scholars and experts who have studied Greek Mythology/philosophy. I will also supplement my research with preliminary research from the internet, which will answer questions that my print sources cease to answer. While some of my research manifests from the ideals of Greek philosophy, other aspects of my