Just or unjust, good or bad, virtuous or vicious- Pablo López Yagüe
The writings of Plato, Sandel, and Straus bridge centuries but all highlight the importance of political theory as the basis in providing a discourse for the reflection of life. Plato’s Crito focuses on reason by adapting the moral point of view on the affairs of justice and virtue, through the analysis of the human natural and the social contract. Sandel’s Doing the Right Thing deliberation on problems helps assess the difficulty of morality over individuals, society and the law in determining what is just and virtuous. However, Straus’ What is Political Philosophy considers the Socratic political philosophy thesis in an effort to restore rationalism, by criticizing positivism …show more content…
Whilst numerous writers have utilized virtue in an ethical context, Socrates identifies ethics directly in what is good for the health of the soul and what behavior mischiefs the soul. Socrates understand his role in Athens is to shame the people, “cannot make a man stupid or random; they simply act random” (Crito, 2007-2012). It is evident that the main foundations that concern Socrates are justice, wisdom and reverence, in caring for the virtue of all, over the virtue of common knowledge, even when it comes at a …show more content…
Sandel explores the differences in concepts, “not be eligible for government- supported medical treatment” (Sandel, 2008) and “honor sacrifice, not bravery” (Sandel,2008). This illustrates the valuation between the financial justice, concerning the medical coverage and distributive justice, in the qualities honored and recognized by the purple heart.
Strauss argues against contemporary philosophers who were fascinated with “positivism” and “historicism”, to recover and restore the Socratic political philosophy. He critics historicism on the foundation that its principles are a definition of their time, hence unable to go beyond their historical era. This implies that historicism “rejects the question of the good society” (Strauss, 1957), by virtue of not being considered an evident truth. Therefore, there is no rational basis to know what is good or bad, or right or wrong. Additionally, positivism is seen through the lens of moral relativism, “questions depend on one’s interest and values,
i.e. subjective principles”, (Strauss, 1957) to demonstrate that natural science cannot distinguish between good or bad, hence it is fair to say that value judgements are
The writings of Plato, Sandel, and Straus bridge centuries but all highlight the importance of political theory as the basis in providing a discourse for the reflection of life. Plato’s Crito focuses on reason by adapting the moral point of view on the affairs of justice and virtue, through the analysis of the human natural and the social contract. Sandel’s Doing the Right Thing deliberation on problems helps assess the difficulty of morality over individuals, society and the law in determining what is just and virtuous. However, Straus’ What is Political Philosophy considers the Socratic political philosophy thesis in an effort to restore rationalism, by criticizing positivism …show more content…
Whilst numerous writers have utilized virtue in an ethical context, Socrates identifies ethics directly in what is good for the health of the soul and what behavior mischiefs the soul. Socrates understand his role in Athens is to shame the people, “cannot make a man stupid or random; they simply act random” (Crito, 2007-2012). It is evident that the main foundations that concern Socrates are justice, wisdom and reverence, in caring for the virtue of all, over the virtue of common knowledge, even when it comes at a …show more content…
Sandel explores the differences in concepts, “not be eligible for government- supported medical treatment” (Sandel, 2008) and “honor sacrifice, not bravery” (Sandel,2008). This illustrates the valuation between the financial justice, concerning the medical coverage and distributive justice, in the qualities honored and recognized by the purple heart.
Strauss argues against contemporary philosophers who were fascinated with “positivism” and “historicism”, to recover and restore the Socratic political philosophy. He critics historicism on the foundation that its principles are a definition of their time, hence unable to go beyond their historical era. This implies that historicism “rejects the question of the good society” (Strauss, 1957), by virtue of not being considered an evident truth. Therefore, there is no rational basis to know what is good or bad, or right or wrong. Additionally, positivism is seen through the lens of moral relativism, “questions depend on one’s interest and values,
i.e. subjective principles”, (Strauss, 1957) to demonstrate that natural science cannot distinguish between good or bad, hence it is fair to say that value judgements are