More handpicked essays just for you.
Summary of cultural relativism essay
Summary of cultural relativism essay
Summary of cultural relativism essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
When relating Plato’s “Ring of Gyges” to the culture that we live in now, he explains that persons are selfish and egoistic. The reason is that people do not always do the unfair things because they fear of being caught and harmed. As a human being, everything we do is coherent. When it comes to Cultural relativism, it is our beliefs, customs, and ethical virtue that relate to our social context. The main purpose is that most people do the right or wrong things that affects the society. The story explains the meaning behind what Glaucon is saying about his culture and what he had to go through and it contradicts his egoism.
First, according to Glaucon’s belief, why do most people act reasonable? Glaucon states that “If you look at what people really are, then you will see that they believe to do wrong is desirable and to suffer wrong is undesirable” (Glaucon 78). In detail, we do not want to suffer the wrong, but we bargain with others and make a simple compact (in other words a social contract) to not harm each other. For instance, people can learn the wrong things and it could be part of their culture. Maybe stealing something can be something grateful at
…show more content…
People may urge to sacrifice Egoism and to sacrifice himself, unthinkingly, for God and this Country, or whether if the political and religion represents the same ideas. The unthinkable thing about egoism is that people think differently. He asked people to imagine that a man is proven to have a ring that makes them invisible. When in control of this ring, the man can perform unjustly without fear of punishment. No one wouldn’t comprehend what Glaucon had claimed, but the most thing to achieve is to behave unjustly if he/she had the ring. He could pamper all of his greedy, self-important, and immoral urges. This story verifies that people are terrified of punishment for
The three men discuss justice as if it's a good thing. Glaucon wants Socrates to prove that it is, and argues if it is just to do wrong in order to have justice, or on the other hand, is it unjust to never do wrong and therefore have no justice. For example; a man who lies, cheats and steals yet is a respected member of the community would be living a just life, in comparison to a man who never lied, cheated, nor stole anything but lives in poverty and is living an unjust life. Glaucon assumes the life of a just man is better than the life of an unjust man.
Glaucon presents an argument against justice in order to pressure Socrates to give a more convincing argument for living a just life. He was unsatisfied with Plato’s counterargument against Thrasymachus. Glaucon wants to believe that justice is good and that living a just life will result in a good life, unlike the Fool in the Leviathan. However, Glaucon strengthening the argument that the unjust life is better. Glaucon starts his argument with the three ways in which something can be good: good in itself, good in itself and good for its consequences, and bad or indifferent in itself but good for its consequences. After presenting these three types of good things, Glaucon asks Socrates to place justice into one of the three categories. Socrates’s responds by saying the he would define justice as the kind of good that we like both for its own sake and for its consequences. Glaucon then requests that Socrates present a convincing argument that justice is good for its own sake, regardless of its consequences. He essentially wants to hear a compelling argument that shows justice as a kind of good that is good for its own sake. Glaucon eventually developed a case that supports the unjust life. He argues that anyone, just or unjust, would commit acts of injustice if they could get away with it and not suffer any consequences. To support his claim, he
In doing so, Unjust Speech advocates a hedonistic lifestyle, one that ignores the concept of shame and focuses rather on self-indulgence. Whereas Just Speech holds society to a common moral ideal, Unjust Speech atones the audience’s vices through pointing out the hypocrisy of the celebrated Greek heroes of the past. Unjust Speech claims that justice is not “with the Gods” (903-5) because Zeus did not perish after having done violence to his father, but rather was rewarded for
Plato’s perception of the human world was described by Rubenstein as “discomfort and longing.” According to Rubenstein, the Platonic epoch is filled with humans that are not one with themselves; potentials of the intellectual integrity are disrupted by this distrust humans have against themselves that are driven by humanly desires and instincts. Unlike Aristotelian epoch where it would be seen that peace would be amongst human and nature, Plato’s universe seems like it is far from what it should be. Rubenstein described it as there is an idea
...Gawain’s time in the wilderness, living nature, and his acceptance of the lady’s offering of the green girdle teach him that though he may be the most chivalrous knight in the land, he is nevertheless human and capable of error.
Clearly, explain in what way Glaucon’s description of what people say about the origin of justice (about laws and mutual covenants in page 40) aligns or compares with what Hume says about the utility of justice. How do Glaucon’s and Hume’s conception of Human nature compare to each other? Do you agree with any of them? Why or why not?
The Ring of Gyges is from Plato’s Republic, in this book Plato is in dialogue with Claucon. The men are discussing justice; Glaucon says that people really don’t want to be good people, but we have to be due to justice. Glaucon also says that justice is rooted in people being weak. Glaucon is not on the side of the victim, he believes that the person who did the injustice in the first place is more of a victim than the actual victim.
Sacrifice within the social context can be transgressed into two aspects, one relating to the offender, and the other being the offended one, God. “If individuals entered a state incongruent with good relations with God, they had to undergo rites to restore them to a normative status” (Davies, 1985;155). Thus the sacrifice encompassed this social dimension. The part played by God in the social ...
...cting unjustly. Therefore, justice is determined to be intrinsically valuable from the negative intrinsic value of injustice that was demonstrated, as well as from parts of the soul working together correctly. Glaucon also wants Plato to show that a just life is better than an unjust life. It has been shown that when the soul is in harmony, it only acts justly. It is in a person’s best interests to have a healthy soul, which is a just soul, so that the person can be truly happy. This means that by showing justice has an intrinsic value, it can also be concluded that it is better to live a just life opposed to an unjust life. The conclusion that I have drawn is that Plato’s argument against the intrinsic value of injustice is sufficient to prove that the just life is superior, even if the unjust life may be more profitable.
The strongest reasonable objection to Glaucon’s argument is that not everyone in Gyge’s ancestor’s position would perform injustice. By arguing that whenever a “person thinks he can do injustice with impunity, he does it,” (360d) Galucon limits his argument by specifying that “anyone” in Gyge’s ancestor’s position would perform injustice. There are individuals throughout history who have been selfless and pure such as Frederick Douglas, Martin Luther King, Harriet Tubman and many more who have acted selflessly and tried to help others as much as they could without any regard for themselves. These individuals are unlikely to act in the same manner as Gyge’s ancestor.
Temptations that function to separate us from our morality are difficult to overcome. Throughout the poem, Gawain struggles to reject the temptations provided
Glaucon attempted to prove that injustice is preferable to justice. At first, Glacon agreed with Socrates that justice is a good thing, but implored on the nature of its goodness? He listed three types of “good”; that which is good for its own sake (such as playing games), that which is good is good in itself and has useful consequences (such as reading), and that which is painful but has good consequences (such as surgery). Socrates replied that justice "belongs in the fairest class, that which a man who is to be happy must love both for its own sake and for the results." (45d) Glaucon then reaffirmed Thrasymachus’s position that unjust people lead a better life than just people. He started that being just is simply a formality for maintaining a good reputation and for achieving one’s goals. He claimed that the only reason why a person would choose to be unjust rather than just due to the fear of punishment. This is supported by the story of the shepherd who became corrupted as a result of finding a ring which made him invisible. He took over the kingdom through murder and intrigue since he knew there could be no repercussions for his unjust actions. In addition, Adiamantus stated that unjust people did not need to fear divine punishment since appeals could be made to Gods’ egos via sacrifices. Finally, Glaucon gave an example of the extreme unjust person who has accumulated great wealth and power which he juxtaposed with an extreme moral man who is being punished unjustly for his crimes. Clearly, injustice is preferable to justice since it provides for a more fruitful life.
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.
If the idea of morality is abandoned, all actions become permissible. Yet the madman himself says that “there never was a greater event, and on account of it, all who are born after [it] belong to a higher history than any history hitherto!” This statement establishes that the madman actually sees the death of God as a benefit. It may seem unusual to describe the sudden and complete elimination of morality from society in a positive way. However, the attitude of the madman can be explained by a rhetorical question that he poses to the villagers. “Shall we not ourselves have to become Gods merely to seem worthy of [killing God]?” In essence, the madman believes that the death of God will make people directionless, but he also believes that people, out of necessity, will give themselves direction, and decide what is right and wrong for themselves.
In Book V of Plato’s Republic, he details his view of an idealistic society. His main arguments include a platonic view of marriage which is comparable to animal breeding. He also shows a strong belief in communal family. In addition, he explains why he believes that philosophers should rule.