More handpicked essays just for you.
Narrative of the life of frederick douglass key points
Narrative of frederick douglass
Narrative of frederick douglass
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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. The best response to this objection is that we live in a different century
...ahlquist’s sacrifice highlights Heinlein’s belief, that the same self-sacrificing impulse that Winston had, might facilitate positive social change. Contrastingly, Le Guin highlights the continued anomalies in human morality where society willingly sacrifices its morals to meet selfish needs. Overall, people’s capacity to effect social change is relative to the prevailing social conditions, their ability to impact critical aspects of the prevailing conflict and their capacity to accept self-sacrifice as morally justifiable. Consequently, moral ambiguity prevails.
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.
I enjoyed the book and I tought it was easy to read and understand. The constant adversities Andreas faced keep me craving more, from the prison scene to him being kidnapped left me wondering what would happen for the next chapter. I also enjoyed learning about the Jewish culture and traditions that the book mentioned, and having a new take on arguments regarding the practice of the Sabbath or how Jesus’s teachings could have sounded to a Gentile back in the day. Overall a fun and interesting book to read and challenged by views on the humanity of Jesus.
Always thinking about satisfying private good can start conflicts towards the higher power, or even cause consequences when rules are broken. An example of this presents itself in Antigone. After much conflict and war throughout the city, Creon, the new king, provides a decree for all the people to follow. He administers this decree with no intentions of being harmful, but only to bring peace to a city that has recently suffered. Although disagreement arose from this decree, simply following the rules given would have been more beneficial. Going against public good in this case led to multiple deaths of family members who could have been saved if public good was considered. One person’s selfish actions resulted in more suffering instead of peace throughout the city, when the only intentions of Creon was reconciliation. The benefits of public good continues in The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, when the constant reproducing cells of a woman, Henrietta Lacks, became life changing in the medical world and the world of many cancer patients. “...her cells went up in the first space missions to see what would happen to human cells in zero gravity, or that they helped with some of the most important advances in medicine: the polio vaccine, chemotherapy, cloning, gene mapping, in vitro fertilization..”(Skloot). In this instance, although Henrietta and her family were striped of their rights immoraly, it resulted as an outbreak for the public good. Sharing these cells with the world has brought a good life to other people fighting cancer, advanced cancer research, and continues to affect the public positively today. The good of Henrietta and her family were dispossessed, nonetheless, the good of the world will prosper forever. Clearly, the value of public good is important when trying to reach peace and when lives are being saved because
However, MacIntyre does not think that a state putting forth such a thin conception of the good can rationally settle competing theories of justice (chapter 17 in After Virtue is devoted to this argument). Just as debates in public morality, such as abortion, cannot be settled rationally by members of society, neither can philosophers or a nation’s citizens settle the debates on justice. Though interesting, the validity of this argument will not be explored here, as the objective of this section is not to carefully examine why MacIntyre thinks the neutralist state fails,
Many believe the notion of equality and justice are very much intertwined. Through the ways in which Lycurgus and Solon reform their city to resolve social inequalities, the notion of equality and justice is discerned, which is to say equality is universal whereas justice depends on the parameters of the society. Lycurgus led his reforms so that everyone equally advances as a public duty. As opposed to Lycurgus, Solon led his reforms so that every person had a fair chance at advancement and participation in government built on merit and wealth. Lycurgus and Solon both modified their city through political, social, and economic reformations to alleviate social injustice.
In 1695 Galileo wrote a Letter to The Grand Duchess Christina. This letter discussed the relationship between the traditional biblical beliefs of the time (the basis on which their society was built), scientific discoveries, and their correlation with one another. The purpose of the letter was to inform that the scientific discoveries being made were not hearsay or contradictory to the Bible, rather they were natural laws, which could coincide with Scriptural based beliefs, not oppose them. In the Letter to The Grand Duchess Christina, Galileo implies that science is the means by which G-d meant for humanity to understand scriptural truths. This belief can be applied to the present day by finding equilibrium, and in turn allowing for a balanced life.
Plato’s Republic focuses on one particular question: is it better to be just or unjust? Thrasymachus introduces this question in book I by suggesting that justice is established as an advantage to the stronger, who may act unjustly, so that the weak will “act justly” by serving in their interests. Therefore, he claims that justice is “stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice” (Plato, Republic 344c). Plato begins to argue that injustice is never more profitable to a person than justice and Thrasymachus withdraws from the argument, granting Plato’s response. Glaucon, however, is not satisfied and proposes a challenge to Plato to prove that justice is intrinsically valuable and that living a just life is always superior. This paper will explain Glaucon’s challenge to Plato regarding the value of justice, followed by Plato’s response in which he argues that his theory of justice, explained by three parts of the soul, proves the intrinsic value of justice and that a just life is preeminent. Finally, it will be shown that Plato’s response succeeds in answering Glaucon’s challenge.
In his Enquiry Concerning the Principle of Morals, Hume rebukes the arguments of skeptical, philosophers who deny the existence of moral distinctions. He doubts that an individual can be so indifferent that he or she is unable to distinguish between right and wrong. Hume believes that the differences between men arise from nature, from habit, and from education. Hume believes no skeptic, no matter how doubtful, can claim that there are absolutely no moral distinctions. Also, he accepts if we disregard these skeptics, we find that they eventually give up their unconvincing claims and come over to the side of common sense and reason. In this paper, it will be shown that ultimately Hume maintains that benevolence is not the basis for self-love, rather it focuses on the utility to please, and the need for benevolence for its own sake.
From Classicisms perspective, individuals are free and rational thinkers, but are ultimately governed by self-interest (Young, 1981). This voluntaristic outlook considers men equal in terms of free-will and the ability to reason; nevertheless some of the population are seen as pre-rational or sub-rational. Nevertheless, the central contradiction between formal and substantive equality plays a key role, not just classicism, but in many theoretical perspectives, as it does not depict why individuals continue to commit crime.
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.
The first change in character begins with Glaucon’s position on whether or not the unjust soul is happier than the just soul. This is seen in Book 4, 445b, when he argues against Socrates’ proposal that they define justice in the individual. He feels that this is a ridiculous inquiry because, through Socrates’ proofs, unjust behavior causes the soul to be in a state of unrest and torment. Glaucon believes that the query warrants no further investigation, since an individual whose soul is unbalanced cannot possibly be happy. Through his objections to pursue the matter further, it can be seen that Glaucon has already begun to transform, though gradually. He sees now, through his own admission, that material possessions and power is not worth having “when his soul – the very thing by which he lives – is ruined and in turmoil.” These feelings stem from the conclusion of the three classes within the...
David Hume is considered a reputable and influential philosopher whose empirical approach provided a basis for a number of moral principles. Although the complexity of Hume’s expressive nature and intellectual thought is somewhat mindboggling to most readers, the importance of the account of justice can be seen as significant and of relevance to many values and morals in even today’s society. Hume’s discussion of moral virtues in his book An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals addresses the importance of justice in terms that relate to its sole foundation and further exemplification of moral distinctions.
Moreover, in most aspects of everyday life, a person will not be affecting large numbers of other people, and thus need not consider his or her actions in relation to the good of all, but only to the good of those involved. It is only the people who work in the public sphere and affect many other people who must think about public utility on a regular basis (Spark Notes,
... case in the present world in which we know given certain conditions person A would hypothetically engage in a morally evil action. It would no be impossible for God to create a world that were almost identical the present world, except that the person would then not engage in the evil. Since, to do so would deny him the freedom of individuality and his personality. That is, for God to ensure that he not engage in the evil would deny his freedom. The only other solution is for God to not create the world at all. He argues that for any world God could create, which included freedom, there is at least