Although many judicial systems around the world rely on everyday citizens to determine whether someone has broken the law, can we trust humans to determine what happens to a person’s life? In judicial courts, they are determining whether someone is guilty of committing a not good act. Good has been defined as the universal object of desire, and the universal object of desire is to be, which therefore means that good is to be. In class, we have also defined justice as the pursuit of good and rendering what is due, to promote the being of everyone. In class, we have proposed that there are two definitions of good: good as value and good as being, because of the physical and nonphysical world. The physical world has been defined as the place where
…show more content…
Definitions can only be known in the nonphysical world because definitions must be universal and unchanging. Thus, definitions can only exist in the nonphysical world because only things in the nonphysical world are universal and unchanging. Since we have learned that there are two proposed definitions of good, there must be two different types of justice to achieve those different types of good.
The class has concluded that there are two types of good: good as value and good as being. Good as value has been defined as using opinions to determine whether an act is good or not and is based in the physical world. Value has been defined as an assignment of personal worth to something or someone. Therefore, there is a different type of good for each person as each person has individualized opinions so things in the physical world cannot be known. This is because to know something is to have a universal definition of what something is that is unchanging, and therefore can only exist in the nonphysical world because that is the …show more content…
Since we have learned that there are two types of good: good as value and good as being, there must be two different types of justice to achieve those types of good. Since we already know that justice is defined as the pursuit of good, for good as value, justice can be interpreted as the pursuit of good using opinions and experiences from the senses to determine if something is good or not good. For good as being, justice can be defined as using knowledge to decide if something is good or not. All humans can determine good using senses and opinions, and all humans have the capacity to determine good using knowledge. We can see in Plato’s Five Dialogues that Socrates agrees with this proposed definition. In Apology, at the beginning of Socrates’s trial about whether he corrupted the minds of the youth, one of the first things he says to the jury is, “It is right for me, gentlemen, to defend myself first against the first lying accusations made against me and my first accusers, and then against the later accusations and the later accusers,” (18 B). Plato shows that Socrates believes that there is a type of justice for good as value because he says, “first accusers,” which represents the past experiences of the jury about Socrates. Furthermore, we can infer that Socrates believes that
Definitions can only be known in the nonphysical world because definitions must be universal and unchanging. Thus, definitions can only exist in the nonphysical world because only things in the nonphysical world are universal and unchanging. Since we have learned that there are two proposed definitions of good, there must be two different types of justice to achieve those different types of good.
The class has concluded that there are two types of good: good as value and good as being. Good as value has been defined as using opinions to determine whether an act is good or not and is based in the physical world. Value has been defined as an assignment of personal worth to something or someone. Therefore, there is a different type of good for each person as each person has individualized opinions so things in the physical world cannot be known. This is because to know something is to have a universal definition of what something is that is unchanging, and therefore can only exist in the nonphysical world because that is the …show more content…
Since we have learned that there are two types of good: good as value and good as being, there must be two different types of justice to achieve those types of good. Since we already know that justice is defined as the pursuit of good, for good as value, justice can be interpreted as the pursuit of good using opinions and experiences from the senses to determine if something is good or not good. For good as being, justice can be defined as using knowledge to decide if something is good or not. All humans can determine good using senses and opinions, and all humans have the capacity to determine good using knowledge. We can see in Plato’s Five Dialogues that Socrates agrees with this proposed definition. In Apology, at the beginning of Socrates’s trial about whether he corrupted the minds of the youth, one of the first things he says to the jury is, “It is right for me, gentlemen, to defend myself first against the first lying accusations made against me and my first accusers, and then against the later accusations and the later accusers,” (18 B). Plato shows that Socrates believes that there is a type of justice for good as value because he says, “first accusers,” which represents the past experiences of the jury about Socrates. Furthermore, we can infer that Socrates believes that