The Truth About Virtue

The two concepts of Morality and Immorality can be discussed in many different ways, although Glaucon, brother to Plato and Adeimantus, and apprentice to Socrates takes a unique approach to showing the implications of both notions. Glaucon does this through an abundance of ways, starting with putting justice in one of the three categories of goods, and then moving on to his three-step argument that challenges Socrates by evaluating the benefits of being an immoral person versus one holding onto their morality. Glaucon’s argument dives into three separate segments, the nature or origin of morality, the standpoint that people only act just or morally out of either fear or of necessity, lastly, that an immoral person’s life is better than a moral

I disagree with Socrate’s opinion that nobody desires what is bad because people don’t tend to always want to do the morally right thing. There are two types of good, the first one is the morally good things just like Socrates means, and the second one is the thing that benefit people’s personal interest regardless if it is morally good. I believe nowadays people sometimes tend to choose the second type rather than the first one which means there will be a chance they choose the bad thing when they know it is bad.

Therefore, if these things are not exchanged with the help of wisdom then Socrates believes that the aspect of virtue is “…a mere illusion.” (Phaedo 69b). In conclusion, Socrates view on morality is based upon justice, examining how to live, and expanding one’s wisdom.

The question asked is “What is Socrates account of a good definition?” Meno tries three times to give a definition for virtue but each time Socrates disproves his definition. The first definition Meno gives states that everyone’s definition of virtue is different depending on who they are, rich or poor, old or young, slave or free. Socrates Immediately tells Meno that this definition of virtue cannot stand.

In Socrates-Meno conversation, Meno asked Socrates the nature of virtue and is it something taught or it is something innate to the men. Socrates couldn’t answer his question claiming that he doesn’t know the definition of what virtue is. So, Meno defined what virtue is for Socrates, one of the definition was that virtue is something to be learned and it is: “desire for good things”, where he explains that the man who manages the city or a woman who manages the house intend to be virtue. This type of management as Meno was thinking is taught, which it’s another definition of virtue that Meno gave, but Socrates disagrees with Meno and delivers his thoughts as a series of question so Meno gets to an understanding that virtue is not something

In this paper I will argue that Socrates’s argument at 30a-b of the Apology that the best possible state of the soul is the most important thing in life means to eliminate false beliefs and to have virtue. Specifically, I will show why Socrates wants to eliminate false beliefs and why he insist on having virtue is important in life. Then I will demonstrate why Socrates’ argument is incorrect because he fails to identify the true catalyst that drives his happiness. I conclude Socrates’s reasoning behind his arguments are logical and sound, however he made the mistake of thinking that whatever drives his happiness will drive others as well.

In contrast to Thrasymachus, Socrates argues that it is the virtue of the soul that provides the motivation for committing a just act, which should be the primary casual reason for justice in human society. Socrates’ argument that the psychic health of the soul is defined as being part of the virtue of wisdom, which prevents the unjust man from committing an unjust act. This description of the soul is part of the countermand to Thrasymachus’ remarks about the advantage of the social framework of the “strong” and the ”weak, which Socrates replies by arguing for the wisdom of virtue as a the balancing motivation for justice: “But it is evident that there must have been some remnant of justice in them [the unjust individual]” Plato 22). This argument, however, only shows the causality of the soul as a virtue, as it does not provide a bridge to the actions of human beings in the real world. In this manner, Glaucon provides a more effective argument against the fallacies of Socrates, which define the societal motivations of punishment and reward that are part of the larger problem of self-serving legal benefits that only benefit the stronger.

While in his more develop works, Plato attests a wide range of positive regulations (the most well known of which was his hypothesis of structures), it is exceptionally questionable whether Socrates propels any positive proposals by any means. On one hand, he expressly guarantees that he doesn't know anything, and that his insight lies in his affirmation of that reality. Then again, there do appear to be some moral rule that profoundly advise the greater part of Socrates' reasoning. Case in point, he is acclaimed for focusing on the significance of knowing oneself and for affirming that nobody ever purposely and deliberately does detestable instead of good. In this area of the content, these moral standards become an integral factor in power

By Characterizing himself –Socrates- as both ignorant and wise, he presents us with one of the most striking paradoxes. Like so many of the other philosophers, is provocative in that its apparent self-contradiction hides an important idea for us readers to discover. Though out this text Socrates ignorance results from his belief that he has no knowledge of moral idea, or moral properties, such as justice, virtue, piety, and beauty. He asserts that, if only he knew the relevant definitions, he would be a moral expert who could answer philosophical questions about moral properties- questions such as is a certain action just? Or is it truly good for a man to be virtuous? Socrates believes that only someone that is

I agree with Alger that virtue is what determines one’s opportunities. Everyone is born into different situations. Some are born into riches, and some are born into poverty, but no matter what you are born in to, you have the decision to do right or wrong. I believe if you choose to do right you will be rewarded accordingly, and if you choose to do wrong you will be punished accordingly. No matter if someone is a Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, or follows any other religion, everyone has a conscious. Richard’s conscience told him that it was his job to jump in and save the drowning boy. Before Richard could even rationalize the situation, he made the decision to do the right thing and jump into the water in attempt to save the boy. And

Socrates view regarding philosophy was the attempt to seek truth and wisdom that would serve a guide for his life (Pecorino, 2010). He believed that knowledge provided a pathway to good and those who were familiar with the concepts of good would choose good (Pecorino, 2010). Though the option of choosing good was not known, those who tried to discover good concepts would inevitably have a good life (Pecorino, 2010). In contrast of good, those who did not seek out good, were evil. Since the act of finding good is a virtue, of the individuals who were ignorant to good were deemed evil involuntary (Pecorino, 2010).

Before this question can be answered, it must be known what these philosophers define good as. Socrates defines good as what is seen as good, since good is seen differently in the eyes of different societies. Plato specifies more in what good represents by describing it as the embrace of the ultimate form, which is good. He also describes this as something that not everyone can achieve in their lifetime. Now that we see their definitions of what is good, I have come to the conclusion that Justice by itself is a means to happiness. In his work, Socrates comes to the conclusion that justice and an individual’s health work hand in hand within his/her soul. He considered health to be the accord between the different factions of the body, each having

Socrates’ claims that he could not have harmed the youth of Athens willingly, and his claim that all desire is for the good, are interconnected with each other. For Socrates claim about his influence on the youth to be true, the claim that everyone desires for virtuous things and not wicked, must also be true. The Meno states that:

The modern society may be moving forward in terms of scientific and technological advancements yet as years go by, the development of ethics and morality tends to move backward. Due to our utmost fascination to material advancements, we tend to forget what truly matters. According to Smith (2014), the modern society rewards material progress while neglecting moral progress. As such, people of the modern age disregard moral and intellectual virtues as if they are a nuisance to their everyday lives. Furthermore, the society prioritizes other affiliations and pursues their own endeavors without considering the possible consequences that might arise due to their unethical or immoral practices. In addition, the modern society is heavily influenced by copious

descriptions of Socrates’ actions, one can begin to apply his emphasis on morality to his concept