Problem set 2
1.) What, according to the theory developed by Glaucon in Republic II, is justice? Why and in what sense is it good to be just person, and bad to be an unjust person?
According to the theory developed by Glaucon, justice is the case where people agreed to be good to each other, so that not to end up in a chaos. It is better to be just, for people will be in a better situation, rather than if they will choose injustice as a way to act. In Republic’s book two, Glaucon sets up a model to demonstrate what justice is. In his model, he differentiates between four theoretical situations that could possibly occur. The first scenario is where an individual, as well as, society act justly towards one another. In such case, an individual …show more content…
Glaucon demands that justice is not intrinsically valuable, but something we endure for the sake of the benefits it brings. He tells the myth of Gyges to provide the evidence that people think justice is rather a burden than good in itself. The point of this story is to show that if any human will have such ring, it will be perfectly in his best interests to always pick injustice over justice. Moreover, Glaucon claims that by nature, human beings are competitive and naturally they always want to make injustice. However, since in reality, there is no ring of Gyges, it is in human’s best interests to do justice, for otherwise they will end up in the chaos. By acting just, a person wants to get justice in return. That is why it is better to be just – to end up in the best realistic option. Oppositely, it is bad to be an unjust person, since by picking injustice, the one will break the agreement and he will get bad things in return. This will lead to a universal injustice that will create the chaos in the society. Such individual will end up in the third worst option there …show more content…
In order to show that human’s soul is plurality, Socrates uses the principle of opposites – a single thing is never characterized by opposites at the same time, in relation to the same thing, and in the same respect. Since this principle must be true, it is impossible for one thing to be conflicted. Sometimes, it appears that a thing is beautiful and ugly at the same time; whenever such situation occurs, it must mean that there is more than one thing. For example, there will be no contradiction if a chair is beautiful and ugly at the same time, as long as it is beautiful in respect to its form and ugly in respect to its color. Otherwise, a chair must be either purely beautiful or purely ugly. The justification of the soul derives from the psychic conflict. If there is only one part in human’s soul, it will never be conflicted, thus there always will be one choice. However, that is the common case when a human being wants something and doesn’t want the same thing, at the same time, in the same way, and relative to the same
1.) What, according to the theory developed by Glaucon in Republic II, is justice? Why and in what sense is it good to be just person, and bad to be an unjust person?
According to the theory developed by Glaucon, justice is the case where people agreed to be good to each other, so that not to end up in a chaos. It is better to be just, for people will be in a better situation, rather than if they will choose injustice as a way to act. In Republic’s book two, Glaucon sets up a model to demonstrate what justice is. In his model, he differentiates between four theoretical situations that could possibly occur. The first scenario is where an individual, as well as, society act justly towards one another. In such case, an individual …show more content…
Glaucon demands that justice is not intrinsically valuable, but something we endure for the sake of the benefits it brings. He tells the myth of Gyges to provide the evidence that people think justice is rather a burden than good in itself. The point of this story is to show that if any human will have such ring, it will be perfectly in his best interests to always pick injustice over justice. Moreover, Glaucon claims that by nature, human beings are competitive and naturally they always want to make injustice. However, since in reality, there is no ring of Gyges, it is in human’s best interests to do justice, for otherwise they will end up in the chaos. By acting just, a person wants to get justice in return. That is why it is better to be just – to end up in the best realistic option. Oppositely, it is bad to be an unjust person, since by picking injustice, the one will break the agreement and he will get bad things in return. This will lead to a universal injustice that will create the chaos in the society. Such individual will end up in the third worst option there …show more content…
In order to show that human’s soul is plurality, Socrates uses the principle of opposites – a single thing is never characterized by opposites at the same time, in relation to the same thing, and in the same respect. Since this principle must be true, it is impossible for one thing to be conflicted. Sometimes, it appears that a thing is beautiful and ugly at the same time; whenever such situation occurs, it must mean that there is more than one thing. For example, there will be no contradiction if a chair is beautiful and ugly at the same time, as long as it is beautiful in respect to its form and ugly in respect to its color. Otherwise, a chair must be either purely beautiful or purely ugly. The justification of the soul derives from the psychic conflict. If there is only one part in human’s soul, it will never be conflicted, thus there always will be one choice. However, that is the common case when a human being wants something and doesn’t want the same thing, at the same time, in the same way, and relative to the same