Thrasymachus follows the principles of sophistry, an intellectual ideology that was most often related to the values of aristocratic warriors. Sophistry is also a term associated with fallacious reasoning and lack of moral consciousness. In The Republic, one of the sophists’ tenets was the framework of Thrasymachus’s notion of justice; this tenet concerns the relationship of what is according to nature and what is according to convention, or human custom (Duke). Unlike Sophocles, Thrasymachus does not believe that it is unjust to do harm to anyone, but his reasoning is also unlike Polemarchus’s. He cites the nature of different regimes such as democracy and tyranny, each of which is, at its very roots, one person or group ruling over the
Polemarchus responds by saying, “that the men one believe to be good, one loves, while those he considers bad one hates.” This is the problem with Polemarchus’ view of justice. He could easily be wrong about who is “good” and who is “bad” and you will end up treating someone who has done nothing wrong unjustly. Dividing a country into classes where each person must be loyal to ones own class would never lead to true justice because the different classes would only be loyal to their particular class. The ruling class would benefit more from this because they are in fact the higher
This is the quotation about Socrates explaining Glaucon and Adeimantus’ argument about what justice is. They believe that no one wants to be just as long as there are some rewards in return. However, when people unjustly act as much as they want, it only creates chaos that makes everyone suffer from other people’s unjust acts because doing unjust acts and suffering from unjust acts do not balance each other. In fact, doing unjust acts is worth much than suffering from unjust acts. Thus, people need to make contracts or agreements to balance its gap, and people obtain rewards from being just.
Niccolò Machiavelli, Baldassare Castiglione and George Washington all had small factors of similarity within their interpretation of an ideal person, some more than others. Machiavelli valued the unpleasant truth, so that people would view the world with a notion of realism. He also always wanted to be in control and make his own decisions without anyone else's opinion to mar his idea of keeping authority with others. And he furthermore pushed the trait of fake sincerity. Instead of truthfully being honest, religious and merciful, he told one that you should fake it, so that when the time arrives, you can switch your personality.
This paper relies on the idea that the individual, not necessarily either good or bad, over time has a tendency to be “corrupt”. Corrupt in this paper will be used in a sense that the characteristics of the corrupt individual are contrary to the desired traits as defined by the society. Ibn Khaldun wrote that the royal authority needs to not exercise too much force. Corrupt would be the appropriate title to the royal authority who acts contrary and violently in this situation. Plato created positions based on the ruling parts of the souls.
Social justice generally even more likely to confuse opinion with truth. This category of justice is similarly does not hold objectivity as its central tenant, as modern judicial justice does, but equality. It has a moral foundation that it is both morally right and just for all people to be treated equally. This is a fine point but there is usually no distinction made between what is morally right and what is just. Both terms begin to become interchangeable and slip into the “Half-Truths” that Plato claims are the root of opinion.
Thrasymachus continues to claim his position but in a modified form of his first argument, after Socrates commented. Being unjust, Thrasymachus thinks, is better than being just because it 's stronger and leads to a more happy life. As before he, he only takes into consideration only the advantages or disadvantages of being just, and he doesn 't discuss what 's justice or how it plays a role in people. Essentially, this definition is an extreme extension of the previous one. The example he gives that a tyrant gets happy through being unjust and controlling draws us back to his first argument saying that ‘ruling being the advantage of the stronger '.
A just society needs to have high morals, this is consistent with Plato’s views were he argues that a society is a failure if it doesn’t have higher moral expectations. For example if people admire wealthy vs the sharing of wealth. (Julie Anna’s) observes this “Plato has what can be called an expansive theory of justice. He does not think that the matters of what just and unjust portray can be settled, in a way which will leave untouched other central moral questions in society”.
Individuals will compare the cost and reward of their decision by which scenario benefits them more and cost them less. Now, one key element in rational choice theory is the belief that all action is fundamentally "rational " in character. (thoughtco.com) This differentiates it from other theories because it denies the essences of any other actions other than rational. So in all I would say that the dramaturgy theory complements the exchange theory, and would disagree with the rational choice theory. Even though, they are very close in ideal principles, rational choice doesn 't quite fit the theory of dramaturgy as well as exchange theory.
Much of Socrates’ ethics was built around this concept, which led to his ethical code becoming basically objective. Socrates’ ethics were based on something of a knowledge/ignorance dichotomy. He believed that people act immorally but they do not act this way intentionally. Like all animals, Socrates believed that we act in and seek out what is in our best interests. If a person knows what is ‘good’, then their manner of behaviour will always be good, as they possess the knowledge of how to do so.