Where Pericles said that money did not matter, but did not really mean it; Socrates said money did not really matter and means it. “A citizen of the great and mighty and wise city of Athens, -- are you not ashamed of heaping up the greatest amount of money and honor and reputation, and caring so little about wisdom and truth and the greatest improvement of the soul” (Plato, 66)? Socrates said, “Not to take thought for your persons or your properties, but first and chiefly to care about the greatest improvement of the soul. I tell you that virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue comes money, and every other good of man, public as well as private” (Plato, 66). Socrates believes that Athenian citizens are more concerned with their wealth, but they should not be.
Pericles, a key political figure of 5th century Athens states, “Our constitution does not copy the laws of neighboring states; we are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves.” The Athenians had no desire to follow what appeared as mediocre government, the Athenians pushed for the best form they could find. Arete, for Athens, meant every person had a voice in politics. Politics embraces the reason of the mind as well as the emotion of the heart. Therefore, the very essence of a good human being would lie in being a politically active person.
The mean is a rare thing, and it must be valued. Sophocles identifies this concept as the court. Athens is given the privilege of judging between the two sides. Those who vote do not have an iron rule individually, nor a selfish chaos, but instead a self-checking balance with power over the gods and furies. The sacred court, must not be overthrown, innovated, or changed.
The relativist’s objection Aristotle’s writings are the best prototype of virtue ethics. Contemporary virtue theories do not grasp nor represents the Aristotelian theory, because they think that it is impossible to escape the charge of relativism in virtue ethics. According to the relativist approach, ethical goodness is relative to each society depending on its traditions and practices. It is thought that virtue can only be outlined locally with reference to a single locale. Relativists reject the idea that there is a general rule, based on specific virtuous actions, that leads to the good life i.e. they reject that there is a single virtue (or norm of flourishing life) that is able to flourish the life of all human beings.
Does John Locke have an answer to Aristotle’s question of: “what is a good citizen”? Aristotle wants to explore and understand nature of different states and constitutions but in order to do that, he argues that first we would have to take a deeper look at the nature of citizenship. Aristotle believes that saying that a citizen is someone who lives in a city or has access to the courts of laws is not enough, he supplements this argument by mentioning other people groups that has access to these things as well, specifically slaves and resident aliens (The Politics of Aristotle, 2009, p. 122). Instead, Aristotle proposes an idea that citizen is someone who upholds the public office and participates in administration of justice, this definition, which he suggests is only applicable to individuals in democratic state, is then further broadened stating that: “a citizen is anyone who is entitled to share in deliberative or judicial office”. To understand if John Locke has an answer to Aristotle’s question or if he’s even interested in such a question it is necessary to look deeper and explore more how Aristotle and John Locke views the states and constitutions, how they explain them and what are their views on citizenship (if they have any).
By using antithesis, Homer contrasts the life of Cyclopes to the life of humans because he believes that life of a human is far better. Homer contrasts the life of Cyclopes to the life of humans by using antithesis. On page 148 the text states, “without a law to bless them. In ignorance…“ The antithesis in this text contrasts the law by which Cyclopes live by to the law that humans live by. The antithesis implies that by not having a law to live by, the Cyclopes are ignorant and unsanctified.
I argue that Socrates espoused an expectation of happiness that was essentially unachievable since it relied, chiefly, upon the telos of wisdom, the character of which he never explicitly defined, and the qualification of which, by all accounts general to his culture, he defied. Furthermore, I argue that Socrates could only claim happiness in terms of the search for wisdom and not in terms of the telos of wisdom-qua-wisdom. This is important since it indicates a fundamental contradiction in the Greek notion of the importance of results (rather than processes), as later qualified by Aristotle.
Clearly it opposes the precept of the ius naturale that men are born free. However though according to Roman jurists the ius gentium had a close correlation with the ius naturale Roman jurists did not view the Natural Law as the highest moral code that was to be strict obeyed. Instead of ethical concerns they were more interested with the practical side of legal life and saw in the content of nature and as well in the universal application of customs devices that could be discovered through natural human reasoning to formulate appropriate solutions for the legal order of the Roman society. I.e. Roman jurists sought to examine whether the Roman rules in their application functioned reasonable and used the ius naturale together with the ius gentium as an interpretation tool which assisted them to constitute the Roman empire 's legal system.
I agree this new society is wired completely different from the 90´s or the ones before it, Aristotle, the great ancient Greek philosopher said “Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human...” Philosophy´s branch, ethics, has also studied the sentimental part of human beings, so in response to this thought, we may say that although these definitions are redefined our humanity is not, we still need to be in touch with our environment, to feel part of a society, to have face-to-face relationships and events. “Technology doesn’t have only educational purposes” When we talk about technology for learning, I didn’t mean to say it is technology devices’ ultimate aim, but that they reproduce certain content that children’s, even if they are not looking at it for learning, learn, we learn everyday, education has two major branches, formal education which is the one we receive at schools, and informal education, the one we receive unintentionally everyday from our environment. “There is no need to be over children's technology management, How do we give freedom, help them to mature if we establish limits?” If you are truly caring parents you should know that since babies saying “NO” is important for them not to be
Justice, or known to some men as revenge, is one of the most ancient values known to man. From historic Hammurabi's code to the U.S Justice System, they are all based on the principle that is a wrong has been committed, it must be made right. Over the centuries, prejudice has violated the principle. These fundamentals have been stepped over and crushed through years of cruel, man-made hatred. The trial of Tom Robinson symbolizes the human nature for justice, while turning a blind eye to the truth because of prejudice, through a historical perspective in Harper Lee’s
Within Plato’s Republic the ideal of Justice is greatly Debated, Socrates main conversationalist being Thrasymachus. In simplest terms Thrasymachus view on “justice” is that it is a “tool” for the most powerful. The powerful use “justice” in a way that allows them to keep power or gain power. Within Thrasymachus’ first argument he uses “justice” in the same regard as “laws”. Thrasymachus argues that a ruling group in all circumstances create laws that work with how they are operating as “a democracy sets down democratic laws; a tyranny, tyrannic laws” (Plato 338e).