A philosopher’s ideal state is when his/her soul is relieved of its bodily duties and can gain true knowledge. Beauty, goodness, and justice can only be seen in the eyes of the soul by itself as the body’s senses deceive the soul. Instead of justice and truth, Socrates believes senses to be concerned with material things such as power and wealth which distract the soul from pursuing truth. Senses also misguide a philosopher in that his senses may be influenced by his surroundings and the true meaning of justice, beauty, or goodness can only be discovered by a soul itself. It is only in death where we can have an unaided visual of such things.
While Socrates arguments may be sound in his opinion, I'm not sure if I agree with them. Just because of the good laws of the state benefited Socrates and helped him in his upbringing, it doesn't mean that he has to remain completely loyal to them for his entire life. His main point about never returning an unjust act with another makes sense to a degree, but only if you agree with his view that the soul is the only thing that matters and not the body. While I understand that point, I don' think every unjust act ruins the soul. Some acts such as telling a white lie in some situations are
Furthermore it emphasises the need for people to break bad habits of character, as they prevent one from achieving full happiness and being a moral person. Such bad habits are greed and anger, and these are referred to as vices and in order to be a good person, we must stay away from these vices. The origins of this theory date at least back to Plato and Aristotle. Although modern virtue ethics does not have to take the form known as "neo-Aristotelian", almost any modern version still shows that its roots are in ancient Greek philosophy by the employment of three concepts derived from it. These are arete (excellence or virtue) phronesis (practical or moral wisdom) and eudaimonia (usually translated as happiness or flourishing.)
MORALLY RIGHT - ASSISTED SUICIDE DONE Does physician assisted suicide belong in this world? Is it ethical to voluntarily kill oneself and gain relief from the sufferings of society? Many philosophers have a broad range of opinions on this issue. Some argue that it is valid and the correct step to take, while others disagree and state that it has no place in the medical world. For instance, a philosopher named Albert Campus states , “There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide.” Furthermore, some commentator’s voice that physician assisted suicide is requested because of poor care, is simply wrong, only leads to a downhill path, and goes against the purpose of medical treatment.
“The Allegory of the Cave” and “Qualities of the Prince” (Authored by Plato and Machiavelli, respectively) have different viewpoints in contrast to one another. Looking at the texts, it seems that Machiavelli would be critical of the views Plato expressed in The Allegory of the Cave for a number of reasons. Plato states that people are inherently good, although good can be “seen only with an effort” (35). Machiavelli, on the flipped side, states that “for a man who strives after goodness in all his acts is sure to come to ruin, since there are so many men who are not good” (7), suggesting that most people are by nature not good, and that pursuing the act of being good, will only lead to disaster. Therefore, he would likely think that Plato’s ideology is too optimistic, if not ignorant, and that one must have a realist viewpoint to survive this world.
In Plato’s The Republic, there exists a struggle between the characters of Socrates and Thrasymachus to find the correct definition of what justice is. Thrasymachus, being a Sophist, expressed his views on justice in a manner of rash sequences whereby Socrates closely followed behind with his own counter-arguments. These counter-arguments effectively exposed weaknesses in Thrasymachus’s argument for justice, and further crippled it entirely. By outlining and explaining Thrasymachus’s views on justice, I will argue two things; first that the weakness in his argument comes from only himself in abandoning his method. Secondly, that justice may be our deep-rooted understanding and ability to identify good from evil.
This would turn morality into something subjective. An action cannot be good and bad at the same time. The real issue that we encounter here is this question: is something good because God says so or does God say so because something is good? The conclusion that Socrates arrives about this dilemma is that a person can be good independent of a god. What is good is good within it.
Actions are then just if they sustain or are consonant with such harmony. Such a conception of individual justice is virtue ethical because it ties justice (acting justly) to an internal state of the person rather than to (adherence to) social norms or to good consequences; but Plato's view is also quite radical because it at least initially leaves it an open question whether the just individual refrains from such socially proscribed actions as lying, killing, and stealing. Plato eventually seeks to show that someone with a healthy, harmonious soul wouldn't lie, kill, or steal, but most commentators consider his argument to that effect to be highly deficient. Aristotle is generally regarded as a virtue ethicist par excellence, but his account of justice as a virtue is less purely virtue ethical than Plato's because it anchors individual justice in situational factors that are largely external to the just individual. Situations and communities are just, according to Aristotle, when individuals receive benefits according to their merits, or virtue: those most
He then leads up to his main objection of this definition by means of stating that even though men and gods love that which they think is noble and good, and hate that which is opposite to those things, not everyone thinks this way about all things (Plato, 7). This being in the nature of things that are considered to be good by a group of people, can be hated by others, and this would also apply to the gods, for not everyone thinks the same. Socrates then uses a good example concerning the gods to better prove his reasons. He states that even though Euthyphro's decision to proceed against his own father may seem agreeable to Zeus, but not to Cronos or Uranus, and that there may be other gods who have these differences of opinions (7). Concerning
After the examination Socrates concludes that the act of escape would be just and he would be morally unjustified and committing the act. The first argument that Crito presents to Socrates brings up the issue of what the majority think. Crito says, “Many people who do not know you or me very well will believe I might have saved you had I been willing to give money, but that I did not care to do so.” (Grude, Pg 47) Crito’s argument is clearly concerned with his own reputation, especially with what the majority