No one can truly define what jerk means, as the word jerk, is a word that does not have an official definition. Even so, people know when jerkish behaviors appears. When Dale cuts in line for the bathroom, takes up two parking places, and takes out his bad mood on his partner, it shows how he is a jerk because he shows no concern for other people and believes that no other can be more important than himself. In here, I will be talking about how Schwitzgebel, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus perceive what it means to be just and how being a jerk is unjust. In the article, “Are You a Jerk” by Eric Schwitzgebel, Schwitzgebel talked about how jerk is being a human that devalues other people. “To be a jerk is to be ignorant in a certain way- ignorant of the values of others, ignorant of the merit of their ideas...” (para 12). A jerk doesn’t care or try to understand other people’s worthiness and that they are equal to them, nor will a jerk accept criticism to improve oneself and see what is wrong with their behavior. Dale knew that cutting in …show more content…
Meaning if help is given to friends and harm is given to enemies, then justice exist. According to this definition, being a jerk is unjust because justice means to help friends but jerks doesn’t help friends. Jerks put themselves first and treats their friends and enemies alike. Instead of helping friends, jerks will disrespect friends and cause distress to friends. Dale cuts in line for the bathroom because he believes that his friends are inferior to him and he deserves the bathroom more even when his friends had been in line and are urgent to use the bathroom. Dale also does not care for or try to help his partner recover from the stressful day and instead takes out his anger on his partner who is also a friend. Dale’s action toward his friends is the opposite of helping friends and the opposite of Polemarchus’s definition of
If one lets someone get away with being mean to someone that does not show bravery or courage at all. One has to stand up for oneself and others to show people one really cares. Danny really likes Mai Thi and stands up for her all of the time. He wants to have a good friendship and relationship with her. He even went on a date with her on Valentine's Day. But in March he did something huge. There were a few eighth graders and one was making fun of Mai Thi so Danny Humfer dumped his lunch tray on him and punched him in the nose. “Until one day, when outside the yellow forsythia branches were weaving themselves together, and the daffodils were playing their trumpets, and the lilacs were starting to bud and getting all giddy, we were going through the lunch line and Mrs. Bigio handed Mai Thi her Tuna Casserole Surprise, and one of the penitentiary-bound eighth graders said loudly to Mrs. Bigio, “Don't you have any Rat Surprise for her?”and then turned to Mai Thi and said, “Why don't you go back home and find some?” and then Mai Thi started to cry, just stood there crying, and Danny took his entire tray- which was filled with Tuna Casserole Surprise and two glasses of chocolate milk and red jello with peaches- and dumped it over the penitentiary-bound eighth grade’s stupid head, and then, before the eighth grader could open his stupid eyes to see had done it, Danny punched him as hard as he could and
Initially Thrasymachus states that Justice is ‘nothing else but the interest of the stronger’. Cross and Woozley identify four possible interpretations; the Naturalistic definition, Nihilistic view, Incidental comment, and the more useful Essential analysis. The ‘Essential Analysis’: “An action is just if and only if it serves the interest of the stronger,” with Thrasymachus stating the disadvantages of Justice and advantages of Injustice. This leads to problems with the stronger man, is it merely the promotion of self-interests? If Justice favours the interests of the stronger, is this simply from the perception of the weak with morality not concerning the stronger? Cross re-formulates Thrasymachus’s view as ‘Justice is the promotion of the ‘strongers’ interest’, therefore both weak and strong can act justly in furthering the strongers interests. However, complication occurs when we understand that Justice is another’s good: “You are not aware tha...
Thrasymachus, tired of holding his tongue back, barges into the argument and asks Socrates exactly what justice is; since Socrates cannot answer Thrasymachus offers his perception:
Once upon a time, there was a little bunny named Harriet, and she loved nothing more than playing with her best friend Alice. Alice lived across the field from Harriet’s burrow. They spent hours nibbling on clover and wiggling their whiskers. Most of all, they loved playing with Harriet’s Wii. One tragic day, the Wii broke. The next day, Harriet waited and waited for Alice to come over to play. Alice did not come that day, nor the next. Alice never came over to play again. Harriet did not know that Alice had found a new friend, with a Wii that worked. When Harriet found out about Alice’s betrayal of their friendship, she wondered: what is a true friend? In an attempt to ease her pain, Harriet got a big bowl of ice cream, and lost herself in reading the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle. There, she discovered that there were actually three different forms of friendship: pleasure, utility and perfection.
In the book one of Republic Socrates was concerned about what is justice. He forms a complex analysis of justice by discussing it with Polemarchus, Cephalus, and Thrasymachus. He refutes each proposition said by them, presenting implicit contradictions coming out of these man's arguments. All of this is to reach to, the Sophist, Thrasymachus. According to what's discussed in book one; Socrates sees that the Cephalus's and Polemarchus's common thinking for justice is insufficient. By entering into the dialogue in an aggressive way, Thrasymachus says that he can better explain the issue of justice. The right thing to do here is disregard justice. He blames Socrates for saying nonsense and for just questioning individuals' answers. Thrasymachus
ABSTRACT: This paper has a two-fold task. First, I show that there are three types of individuals associated with the Thrasymachean view of society: (a) the many, i.e., the ruled or those exploited individuals who are just and obey the laws of the society; (b) the tyrant or ruler who sets down laws in the society in order to exploit the many for personal advantage; (c) the "stronger" individual (kreittoon) or member of the society who is detached from the many and aspires to become the tyrant. Second, I argue that if Thrasymachus’s account of the perfectly unjust life of the tyrant is to be more than a theoretical ideal, then the stronger individual who aspires to the tyrant’s position would do well to lead a double life—namely, pursuing private injustice while maintaining the public ‘appearance’ of justice. My interpretation accords with that of Glaucon, noted at the beginning of Republic II. I want to extend Glaucon’s interpretation to include the stronger individual as well. I argue that the standpoint of the stronger individual, as distinct from the standpoints of the tyrant and the many, shows Thrasymachus’s three statements regarding justice to be consistent with one another.
Justice is described as “a moral concept that is difficult to define, but in essence it means to treat people in ways consistent with
Since we are made as free moral agents with the ability to choose the standards by which we will live some in society determine their right and wrong behavior based on their feelings of particular situations. For example, a person who grew up in a culture that is less fortunate than others and steals for survival might feel he hasn’t done anything wrong. However, this type of behavior is not acceptable in our society because it violates our obligation to be obedient to the law, not to mention the disadvantage of consequences one faces for their decisions. The advantage to displaying moral character by far out weights the consequences in that choosing to do right creates fairness by way of harmony. Of course, justice requires that victims are compensated for the wrong done to them, and anyone committs a crime must bear the ...
The debate between Thrasymachus and Socrates begins when Thrasymachus gives his definition of justice in a very self-interested form. Thrasymachus believes that justice is only present to benefit the ruler, or the one in charge – and for that matter any one in charge can change the meaning of justice to accommodate their needs (343c). Thrasymachus provides a very complex example supporting his claim. He states that the man that is willing to cheat and be unjust to achieve success will be by far the best, and be better than the just man.
C.S. Lewis begins his illustration with “the law of human nature”. All humans are governed by an expectation of fair play or a sense of right and wrong. Even if someone says that they don’t believe in a code of morality, they may disprove what they say by claiming that something or another is “not fair”. We can see by arguments between people, that all people bear this “law”, or the sense of what is right and what is wrong. Some may criticize another for doing something wrong, but on the other hand defend their own incorrect actions with excuses. Blaming their actions on being tired or hungry,
Out of the confrontation with Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, Socrates emerges as a reflective individual searching for the rational foundation of morality and human excellence. The views presented by the three men are invalid and limited as they present a biased understanding of justice and require a re-examination of the terminology. The nature in which the faulty arguments are presented, leave the reader longing to search for the rational foundations of morality and human virtue.
To be just or unjust. To be happy or unhappy? Men fall into these two categories. Why does a man act according to these 2 extremes? Is it because they fear punishment? Are they quivering in fear of divine retribution? Or do men do just things because it is good for them to do so? Is justice, good of its rewards and consequences? Or is it good for itself. What is justice? Are the people who are just, just as happy as the people who are unjust? Plato sheds light on these questions and says yes, I have the definition of justice and yes, just people are happy if not happier than unjust people. Plato show’s that justice is worthwhile in and of itself and that being a just person equates to being a happy person. In my opinion, Plato does a good job and is accurate when explaining what it is to be just and this definition is an adequate solution to repairing an unjust person or an unjust city or anything that has an unjust virtue and using the definition of what justice is accurately explains why just people are happier than unjust people.
When one is just, he seems to receive endless amounts of praise and fortune due to the common belief of those surrounding him that he is indeed just. Contrary, when one is unjust, he receives endless amounts of shame and hardships due to the prevailing belief of those surrounding him that he is indeed unjust. However, one has the ability to put on a façade and deceive those around him into thinking that he is just, when, in reality, he is unjust. This can lead to many misinterpretations of a man’s true actions as his peers do not truly know, nor even realize that they do not know, that he may be unjust in private affairs. Similarly, if a man has a universal reputation for being unjust, but is actually just, he would be treated as if he indeed
As the novel progresses, the character named Jack displays how humans are bad. Jack becomes a savage, as he no longer wants to be a part of society. He demonstrates acts of violence during the story. “Viciously, with full intention, he hurled his spear at Ralph” (Golding 181). Jack uses his natural instincts and feelings to attempt to harm Ralph. This horrid act
Jane doe noted that she always she’s herself as a pleaser she lives to see smiles on people faces. She said” while growing up I was always the nice girl; I don’t think I have a mean bone in my body. My feelings are hurt easily and I figured if I’m always nice others will be nice to me as well.” Kohlberg ,1971 Third stage Interpersonal Correspondence “Nice –boy/Good-girl” explains nice behaviors help others gain approval from others. Being nice to others becomes important for the first time. Jane doe also expressed how she feels about showing others respect especially her close family. She explained that her father drilled in her the importance of showing respect to her elders and how important it is to show respect by answering yes ma’am/sir and no ma’am/ sir when speaking to an Authority figure. This is an example of Kohlbergs,1971 fourth stage Law and Order which suggest that the right behavior consists of doing one duty of showing respect for authority and maintaining the given social order for its own