Plato’s theory of happiness is analysed throughout the Republic. He believes as Socrates did that the virtues of courage, temperance, wisdom and justice and the ability to regulate them with harmony is the key to an authentically happy person. The virtue of justice is of particular interest and what its function is in a truly just person and how that relates to happiness. Who is happiest the truly just person destined to be shackled with all the perils of the unjust, or the truly unjust person destined to lead the enriching life of a just person? Plato analyzes justice in terms of the tripartite city first. The idea here is that it is easier to interpret a quality if it is in context of a larger whole. The society being the whole of a person which makes up its parts. If you can define justice based on a truly just city then you could apply this to the person more easily.
Once he lays out the plan for a Just City he has the blueprint for a just person. According to Plato the city would need to be a republic ruled by as little or as many people who had all the necessary qualities for keeping the city just. They alone would know what was best for the city and they alone would rule it accordingly. The rulers would be one class of people in a 3 class system. They would be known as philosopher kings and queens. The virtues they would possess would be wisdom, courage and temperance. The next class are the guardians, they are responsible for protecting the city against outside invasion. This class would be the best of the third class called the citizens, who possess the virtue of temperance. The guardians would be chosen for their excellence in citizenship, and possess and develop the virtues of courage and temperance. A...
... middle of paper ...
... and eternal. Justice is something that can be aspired to, and if achieved within oneself to as much perfection as possible the closer to happiness the person could be. This happiness could not be influenced or changed according to some external factors, not unlike the happiness of the truly just person held in shackles. In contrast Aristotle’s view of the forms were that they were subject to our world and changeable. Through Aristotle’s viewpoint we could see how the just person in shackles would not be counted among the happy. You could suppose that he had led the contemplative life and excelled in the application of the virtues such as temperance and courage, but in the end because of circumstance all of that happiness had been destroyed through his current confinement. Ethical actions secured Plato’s happiness and it is a gateway to Aristotle's happiness.
In his philosophical text, The Republic, Plato argues that justice can only be realized by the moderation of the soul, which he claims reflects as the moderation of the city. He engages in a debate, via the persona of Socrates, with Ademantus and Gaucon on the benefit, or lack thereof, for the man who leads a just life. I shall argue that this analogy reflecting the governing of forces in the soul and in city serves as a sufficient device in proving that justice is beneficial to those who believe in, and practice it. I shall further argue that Plato establishes that the metaphorical bridge between the city and soul analogy and reality is the leader, and that in the city governed by justice the philosopher is king.
In Plato’s reasoning he explains that everyone is born with innate qualifications that make them more fit than others for a certain occupation. He suggests that in this way each person’s function will be completed thoroughly. The same theory applies when deciding how the city with be ruled. Only people who possess superior traits will have the power to rule. These people will pertain to the highest ranking class of the state called the guardian class.
"Who's to judge who's right or wrong?" In the case against moral relativism Pojman provides an analysis of Relativism. His analysis includes an interpretation of Relativism that states the following ideas: Actions vary from society to society, individuals behavior depends on the society they belong to, and there are no standards of living that apply to all human kind. An example that demonstrates these ideas is people around the world eat beef (cows) and in India, cows are not to be eaten. From Pojman second analysis an example can be how the Japanese take of their shoes all the time before entering the house. In Mexico it is rare that people take off their shoes. They might find it wired or not normal. In his third analysis he gives that sense moral relativism and cultural relativism are tied together, that their can be no
(DK80b1): “Of all things the measure is man, of the things that are, that [or "how"] they are, and of things that are not, that [or "how"] they are not.” Protagoras brand of ethical relativism suggested that morality is subjective to the relative context, such as culture, within a family, or even autonomous authority. In the Plato’s Theaetetus Socrates and Theaetetus have a discussion that centers primarily around the epistemology of Protagoras and Heraclitus that knowledge is only perceptions. Socrates puts forth his objections and alternatives. His alternatives likewise center around his theory of the forms and the objectivity of this theory. If knowledge is perceptions to Protagoras, then you can see how morality would be subjective. If I say it is wrong to eat a horse, and someone from Europe says that it is not wrong to eat a horse, then the wrongness of that statement is relative to the culture. Taken further, if one person perceives x as wrong and another person perceives x as right the truth value is relative to an autonomous authority. The distinction in this the ethical nihilism of Gorgias is that there is still belief that these statements have normative value that is truth value.
In his several dialogues, Plato contends the importance of the four virtues: wisdom, courage, self-control, and justice. In The Republic, he describes a top-down hierarchy that correlates to the aspects of one’s soul. Wisdom, courage, and temperance preside control over the rational, spirited, and appetitive aspects of the soul. It is when one maintains a balance between these aspects of his soul that he attains peace within himself: “...And when he has bound together the three principles within him...he proceeds to act...always thinking and calling that which preserves and cooperates with this harmonious condition (Plato 443c).” Wisdom and knowledge consistently remain at the top of his view of happiness. During the apology, Plato is asked what punishment is best suited for him. He sarcastically answers, “to be fed...(It is) much more suitable than for any one who has won a v...
In The republic, Plato believes that individual justice is very important in any political body. It enables any person to play their role in the society and achieve pleasure. The soul of an individual is structured into three parts. There is the rational part
Socrates' ideal city is described through Plato in his work The Republic, some questions pondered through the text could be; How is this an "ideal" city formed, and is justice in the city relative to that of the human soul? I believe Socrates found the true meaning of justice in the larger atmosphere of the city and applied that concept to the human soul. Socrates describes his idea of an "ideal city" as one that has all the necessary parts to function and to show that justice is truly the harmony between the three stages of the city and soul in the human body.
One of Plato's goals in The Republic, as he defines the Just City, is to illustrate what kind of leader and government could bring about the downfall of his ideal society. To prevent pride and greed in leaders would ensure that they would not compromise the well being of the city to obtain monetary gains or to obtain more power. If this state of affairs becomes firmly rooted in the society, the fall to Tyranny begins. This is the most dangerous state that the City become on i...
The ideas that Plato instills are both detailed and distinctive, on the other hand he believes that actions do not necessarily justify a person but rather, he states that justness is more of an internal virtue. The idea he is trying to convey is that justness comes from the interpretation of the soul rather than the physical functions. The reasoning behind this is that if the soul remains just, then the resulting actions will reflect just ends. Once the fact that the soul must be just is accepted, the question arises of what qualifies the soul as just will need to be answered.
The idea of the possibility of such model of justice and education, thus in turn the utopia city. Plato's ideal social arrangement would be a city with philosophy-kings, guardians, auxiliaries, and producers or craftsmen. justice of the city is much clearer and more obvious than that of the individual. such a society is nearly impossible as it is built mainly on the foundation of myths and censorship. Despite these being based on noble falsehoods, they are still lies. For instance, the myth of the metals explains why certain people belong to certain class and allows the citizens to be patriotic and harmonious which is beneficial for the City. However, when justice of the city as a whole is looked at, there is no need to demand that every citizen have the same type of justice. "the city we were founding and describing exists in theory, for I don't think it exists anywhere on earth" (592b). Plato himself also agrees, and suggests that such state is
...is own desires rather than his subjects needs is not virtuous. Second, a person in the military, who is supposed to be courageous may desert his fellow troops in fear. Third, many common people commit crimes, and create conflict within the community. None of these people are virtuous. However, this is exactly what Plato was getting at. Plato believes that when each of these classes performs its own role and does not try to take over any other class, the entire city as a whole will operate smoothly, showing the harmony that is genuine justice. (ln 433e) What makes the Republic such an important and interesting piece of literature is that by examining what brings true justice and harmony to the world, we can therefore understand all of the virtues by considering how each is placed within the organization of an ideal city.
Moral relativism, as Harman describes, denies “that there are universal basic moral demands, and says different people are subject to different basic moral demands depending on the social customs, practices, conventions, and principles that they accept” (Harman, p. 85). Many suppose that moral feelings derive from sympathy and concern for others, but Harman rather believes that morality derives from agreement among people of varying powers and resources provides a more plausible explanation (Harman, p. 12).The survival of these values and morals is based on Darwin’s natural selection survival of the fittest theory. Many philosophers have argued for and against what moral relativism would do for the world. In this essay, we will discuss exactly what moral relativism entails, the consequences of taking it seriously, and finally the benefits if the theory were implemented.
In explaining Cultural Relativism, it is useful to compare and contrast it with Ethical Relativism. Cultural Relativism is a theory about morality focused on the concept that matters of custom and ethics are not universal in nature but rather are culture specific. Each culture evolves its own unique moral code, separate and apart from any other. Ethical Relativism is also a theory of morality with a view of ethics similarly engaged in understanding how morality comes to be culturally defined. However, the formulation is quite different in that from a wide range of human habits, individual opinions drive the culture toward distinguishing normal “good” habits from abnormal “bad” habits. The takeaway is that both theories share the guiding principle that morality is bounded by culture or society.
In conclusion, Aristotle’s argument about the ‘good life’ demonstrates that the good life for people is a life of happiness. Plato’s however does not as he believes living the good life needs knowledge. From the reasons above, Aristotle’s solution to the problem of the ‘good life’ is a better answer than Plato. On the other hand, Aristotle’s golden mean would not work however Plato’s absolutism will work in the situation in keeping a promise and breaking a promise. From the reasons stated above Plato’s absolutism will be a better answer than Aristotle’s revitalise.
In order to understand how unity and harmony tie the ideal state together, one must first understand the coloration of unity with justice. Simply defined justice, according to Plato, is specialization. Each person doing their own craft is what justice entails. However, this definition of justice leads to something larger within the individual and the state. According to Plato, "... we must compel these Guardians and Auxiliaries of ours to second our efforts; and they, and all the rest with them, must be induced to make themselves perfect masters each of his own craft. In that way, as a community grows into a well ordered whole, the several classes may be allowed such measure of happiness as their nature will compass" (P, p. 111). The theory of justice as specialization leads to the happiness of the whole.