Due 3/22

1) What do you think is the best definition of justice? It can be one of the views expressed in The Republic, a modification of one or more of them, or something completely different.

In my mind the best definition of justice to one is something that one feels is morally correct. Unfortunatly this does may not work for everbody, for instance if one person thinks that expressing yourself through violence is just, and another person thinks the opposite the morals collide and we have a situation that doesn't fit together. In the end, the only kind of justice that can work in a society is through some sort of compromisation. The best definition for justice in a society is a moral system that works to benifit everybody. This way everybody is happy and unharmed. Unfortunatly this is an example of a utopia that is not possible with our human society. People do not all share the same moral system and cannot function as a perfect whole without there being someone to screw it all up.

due 3/21

Prompt: In your opinion, how can acting “right” (i.e. justly) help or harm the achievement of happiness? In your answer you need to first establish, in true Socratic fashion, what you mean by "right" (justice) and what you mean by happiness. What do you think Socrates would say about what you wrote and/or what do you think Thrasymachus would say?

I think acting right could help your happiness because in the back of your mind all u need to do to become happy is to remember all the good things you did for yourself or other peole and forget about all the bad things. I think that socrates would probably ask a question trying to attract my thinking somewhere else and try to get me confused / get me to have another opinion.

due 3/20 republic assignment

1Q) Notice that our reading on Thrasymachus is divided into two parts. The first part is entitled – “First Statement and Criticisms”. In this first part, what are Socrates’ main argument(s) against the idea that justice is whatever the strong (i.e. the government) says it is?1A) Well, he mainly states that it would be a foolish way for things to be. Generally, politicians and leaders are always making decisions for their best interest, thus meaning what is in their best interest is the law, and anything else is against the law. But, if a leader gives an order by accident that hurts them, then it is against the law, but the leader gave the order so the people must obey it. It is cryptic talk of how backwards things would be in that case.2Q) In the second part – “Second Statement and Final Refutation” – what are Thrasymahcus’ two main points and what are Socrates’ two main points in response?2A)Thrasymachus' two main points are that 'justice is the interest of the stronger party' and that 'injustice is the interest and profit of oneself'. Socrates retorts with the points that 'no one really wants authority and with it the job of righting other people's wrongs, unless paid for it' and also that 'all wise men would prefer the benefit of this service at the hands of others rather than the labor of affording it to others themselves'.3Q) In your opinion, is it ever right to harm somebody? Why or why not? What would Socrates and/or Thrasymachus say in response to your answer?3A) It is absolutely never right to harm another person. Wise men do not fight with their fists, swords, or spears, they fight with their words and avoid the needless conflicts, and that is what everyone should do. In response to that, I believe that Socrates would completely agree that harming another person is never right. On the point of how wise men fight with their words, he might differ slightly. Mainly because most wise men can get others to fight for their cause through persuasion and wit(Agamemnon).