Solving The Costs And Benefits For Each Of Our Options

Glaucon’s argument in book II of Republic concerns the issue of justice. From the outset Glaucon explains that justice is a social contract that emerges - between people who are roughly equal in power - for the reason being that the pain of experiencing unjust actions is greater than the benefits accrued from inflicting it. (Plato, 2008) In this essay I will first outline his argument and explain how the parable of the Ring of Gyges attempts to support his theory. I will then argue that I do not find his argument plausible and it falls just short of persuading the reader.

In Plato’s The Republic, we, the readers, are presented with two characters that have opposing views on a simple, yet elusive question: what is justice? In this paper, I will explain Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, as well as Socrates’s rebuttals and differences in opinion. In addition, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus, and offer critical commentary and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument at hand.

Plato’s Republic, is a classic philosophical novel that covers many points and topics regarding philosophy. One of these main points includes justice. In this essay I will be answering the question of whether justice in soul is choice worthy for its own sake. While this topic is quite complex, I will use a mixture of personal analysis as well as evidence from the book itself to assert that justice in soul is the best choice for its own sake. In the following paragraphs I will discuss what justice in the soul is, why justice in soul is choice worthy and finally to what extent this choice entails.

It is important to understand that both Philippe Beneton and Plato are against the equality by default mindset and find it to be unproductive and self-inflicting. Beneton’s book Equality by Default shows how equality by default results in the deterioration of the good. This occurs because the good is separate from the way that you should live. This separation occurs because the good is arbitrary and all actions are considered equal. The good and the “not good” are different and must be considered so. Equality by default eliminates the need to even acknowledge differences because “we are alike because we are different, and no difference is worth more than another.” (Beneton, 15) These differences are what make us human and are necessary to live humanly. If no human activity is better than another, then the good is eliminated and “living humanly no

With this perspective, people are considered rational thinkers, and when a person commits a crime, the person is making a rational choice to engage in criminal behavior. If a person steals a purse, they have chosen to do so because of rational thought. The person could be envious, stealing a purse just for fun, or many other reasons. The real issue is that the person rationally decides to take the purse under the wrongful thinking that it will bring them some benefit, and this benefit is important to their own purposes. Crime occurs because people rationally weigh whether they will obtain a reward for committing a criminal act instead of being punished for the criminal act. It is ultimately decided by which one has the strongest pull on the individual.

The rational choice theory gives insight in to why otherwise law abiding citizens would commit crime. Most burglars do not burglarize because they want something specific from the victim's property nor are they saving the cash proceeds for a long-term goal. They burglarize because they need the money right now to pay off bills, buy food and clothes for their family or to purchase alcohol and illegal drugs. Most burglars would turn to making an honest living, but, even that does not meet their immediate desires for cash. Nor would the earned wages support their lifestyles. (Wright & Decker, 1994).

In Plato’s Ideal State, justice is essentially equality. Any factor that might cause a difference among human beings is eliminated in his Ideal State. When everyone is the same as others in all respects, justice is equality.

Plato?s view of Justice can be seen in his model of The Tripartite Soul. In this model Plato outlines 3 sectors of his ideal society. This theoretical society is composed of Guardians, Auxiliaries, and Producers. The Guardians were the upper class citizens who had the authority to pass judgment. Guardians were rational and wise, and could participate and become involved in politics. The Auxiliaries were positioned as courageous citizens who helped preserve the spirit and emotion of a society by ?protecting and serving? much like a modern day public works department or police and fire squad. In the lowest tier of Plato?s ideal society were the Producers, whose job it was to create. The Producers were to use temperance in their lives, for they were classified as appetitive souls who could easily succumb to bodily desires. The Producers were to practice asceticism, which is the eradication of bodily desires.

Firstly, we must understand why justice is so important for this argument to hold any weight. Justice is something that has been talked about in many philosophical discussions but the first in depth conversation is from Plato’s Republic. In book one three different definitions are analyzed. The first is where you speak truthly and give back what you take from others, secondly Thrasymachus’s definition is that justice is to the advantage of the stronger. The definition that ends their conversation is that justice is better than being preyed on by others although not as good as always taking advantage of people. The reason why this conversation is discussed so in depth is because justice is seen as a virtue by Plato. This is on an individual level and a governmental level, as Thrasymachus discusses it. Plato believes that “justice in the city is the same thing as justice in the individual”. Given that information it’s obvious that justice is an overarching theme of the developing of the perfect republic in the book. Its viewed by Plato that justice is a “master virtue in its own sense” because if you and your city are just than everything else will be working together too. This is an elevated way of viewing justice and since its spoken about so much in the book it’s very important to hear Thrasymachus’s opposing argument to it.

The common fertilization of justice in plato’s day was a social one, which intricate the following of laws and agreement. Glaucon uses the ring of Gyges to show that people value justice not as a good but because that are too weak to do injustice with indemnity. This view of justice might lead one to Glaucon’s argument. But I will disagree that this view is wrong for two reasons. First, I think that there are some things wrong with Glaucon’s description of justice, which would not undeviating one to as painful of a conclusion as Glaucon. Second, I will reveal that Glaucon can not get the outcome he claims by prerequisite. Glaucon’s argument is unsafe.

Plato wrote, “And are there not many other cases in which we observe that when a man’s desires violently prevail over his reason, he reviles himself, and is angry at the violence within him, and that in this struggle, which is like the struggle of fractions in a State, his sprit is on the side of his reason.” According to Plato and many other Greek Gods, humans are always best served when they chose to act reasonably and when acting on impulse. For others they believed what the Athenians told the Melians: “[In] the discussion of human affairs the question of justice only enters when the pressure of necessity is equal, and that the powerful exact what they can, and the weak grant what they must.” There was no remorse by the powerful by acting

In Book I of the Republic, Plato examines whether injustice is more profitable than justice. Thrasymachus claims that statement to be true so Socrates sets out to show that justice is stronger and more powerful than injustice. Also, that a just person is happy while an unjust person is unhappy. Socrates establishes right before with Thrasymachus that injustice is wisdom and virtue while injustice is ignorance. From this, Socrates believes it will be easily shown that justice is stronger. In this paper, I will begin by examining Socrates’ weaker argument that says a just person is happy. Here, he claims that the virtue of a soul is justice, and the soul has multiple functions that can only be performed well through justice. However, this

In the Introduction of Plato's Republic, a very important theme is depicted. It is the argument of whether it is beneficial for a person to lead a good and just existence. The greatly argued position that justice does not pay, is argued by three men Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus. By incorporating all three men into a collective effort I believe I can give a more flattering depiction of injustice.

Plato in book 1 is not himself, he is potrayed by another character since plato is the author of book 1. The word Advantage throughout book 1 to demonstrate how justice can be an advantage for some and a disadvantage for others. According to Plato this is what Justice symbolizes, therefore this statement mentioned above is fully justified. To further support this claim, this paper will focus on the following supporting evidence. Firstly, how Plato’s character uses the word advantage to solidify his opinions on what justice should be and secondly, how Plato’s character view on advantage and justice differs from Socrates opinion.

In economics a rational consumer is defined as the people who act in a rational way and make rational choices, namely spending their money wisely. Utility is a term used to measure the amount of pleasure a consumer gains from a good or service they choose to invest in, thus spending our money wisely, in economic terms is a method of maximizing our own utility. However in today’s world different societies and individuals have failed to distinguish the different between a want and a need, which has consequently made itself apparent through the fact that human beings are not rational. In order to be a rational consumer people must understand that a need is something that you need to survive, whereas a want isn’t a vital necessity needed to