To be virtuous means to have high moral standards; to be righteous and honorable. Principle is moral rule or belief that helps one distinguish what is right and wrong. To have power means to have the capability to direct or influence the behavior of others. Virtue and principle go hand in hand, virtue requiring a moral compass and principle providing that said compass, but is that what’s most important? Being morally responsible? Or is obtaining and having power more important— specifically when it comes to politics. Socrates and Rousseau definitely would argue in favor of morality versus power; Socrates is more interested in finding one’s true self which he believes is equated with virtue and Rousseau is concerned with preserving individual
…show more content…
They jury does not sit to dispense justice as a favour, but to decide where justice lies; and the oath which they have sworn is not to show favour at their own discretion, but to return a just and lawful verdict” (Plato 63, Apology 35c).
Socrates definitely supported virtue and principle over power, in fact he was willing to die to prove his faith.
Compared to Socrates, Rousseau was more focused on finding an ideal society instead of truth, but he also agreed with Socrates’ defense on virtue and principles. Rousseau believed that people were motivated by self-preservation and pity, and compassion was the natural state of law which acted as a restraint for some to keep them from harming others;
“Before its birth, the desire of self-preservation, tempers the ardour with which he pursues his own welfare, by an innate repugnance at seeing a fellow-creature suffer. I think I need no dear contradiction in holding a man to be possessed of the only natural virtue, which could not be denied him by the most violent detractor of human virtue. I am speaking of compassion, which is a disposition suitable to creatures so weak and subject to so many evils as we certainly are” (Rousseau, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality,
They jury does not sit to dispense justice as a favour, but to decide where justice lies; and the oath which they have sworn is not to show favour at their own discretion, but to return a just and lawful verdict” (Plato 63, Apology 35c).
Socrates definitely supported virtue and principle over power, in fact he was willing to die to prove his faith.
Compared to Socrates, Rousseau was more focused on finding an ideal society instead of truth, but he also agreed with Socrates’ defense on virtue and principles. Rousseau believed that people were motivated by self-preservation and pity, and compassion was the natural state of law which acted as a restraint for some to keep them from harming others;
“Before its birth, the desire of self-preservation, tempers the ardour with which he pursues his own welfare, by an innate repugnance at seeing a fellow-creature suffer. I think I need no dear contradiction in holding a man to be possessed of the only natural virtue, which could not be denied him by the most violent detractor of human virtue. I am speaking of compassion, which is a disposition suitable to creatures so weak and subject to so many evils as we certainly are” (Rousseau, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality,