Thucydides Vs Socrates Analysis

756 Words 4 Pages
The idea of right and wrong have been something of question throughout the span of time. If I do this am I a bad person? What if no one saw me? Ethics gives us codes in which we use to give morality to our lives. In reading about Thucydides and Plato we see that, while both highly regarded philosophers, the methods they use to teach are vastly different. Thucydides preferred an empirical style in the way that he chose to approach his studies of human nature and believes that justice is determined by strength, where Plato was said to have a more normative claim and deems that an individual’s constitution dictates what is right. In my reading of these two philosophers, both present their opinions through stories which provide the reasons behind their respective philosophies and at the same time call out the faults in …show more content…
Plato’s views on what he felt was a good life came from his beliefs that everything has a purpose. He found that when a man possess harmony in life, he will act justly because he cannot indulge the needs of one aspect more than the others. Plato’s rational is normative, most essentially since it is a credence about “what is right, what is good, or what should be done.” (Newton, 2004b, p. 11). In reading from The Republic, Socrates is in conversation with Caphalus about right and wrong, Socrates states if a friend had lent him a weapon and then went mad and asked for it back, it would be wrong to return it, but it would also not be “right” to do so. The distinguishing factors between right and wrong aren’t always plain to see, there is usually elements that play into these thing that make a person have to think. Plato is very articulate that it is not merely about receiving what you want, but more focused on doing only what necessities to be done to stay happy and in balance, and with that comes a obligation to

Related Documents