Platos the Republic Essay Example for Free

Platos the Republic Essay By the beginning of Book II of Plato’s The Republic, many questions have been brought upon the table involving the definition of justice. Polemarchus argues that justice is doing good to your friends and harm to your enemies. Thrasymachus argues that justice is the advantage of the stronger. Socrates finds flaws in both of these definitions, but discovers another important question about the nature of justice. Socrates wants to know whether the just life or the unjust life is better, or happier, but all arguments thus far have proved unsatisfactory. Book II aims to further outline this complicated question, and hopefully lead them closer to an answer. Glaucon isn’t satisfied by the previous explanations on the nature of justice and injustice. To satisfy his hunger for knowledge, he proposes a challenge to Socrates. Glaucon wants Socrates to explain how justice could be intrinsically good, or, in other words, how justice could be welcomed for its own sake, such as we welcome joy for its own sake. Glaucon expresses this challenge by defining to Socrates the three kinds of goods. Intrinsic goods, he says, are those that are welcomed for their own sake, and not for what rewards could possibly come from them. Mixed goods are those that we welcome for their own sake, but also for what possible rewards could come from them. Instrumental goods are those that we only welcome for the rewards that come from them. Glaucon believes that Socrates could prove that justice is a mixed good by proving exactly how it is instrinsic. Glaucon, in an attempt to reiterate Thrasymachus’s argument in Book I, goes on to present a three-part argument proving that injustice is better than justice. In his first point, Glaucon explains the common conception of justice and it’s origins. Essentially, the natural origin of justice comes from the fact that people like doing injustice, but it is worse to endure justice. Because of this, everyone comes to an agreement not to do injustice so they don’t have to suffer it. Since this story of the origins proves that justice is purely instrumental, if one was to accept this story they would also accept the next two points and, ultimately, accept Thrasymachus’s position. Glaucon’s second point is that justice is purely instrumental. He illustrates this point by using the example of the ring of Gyges. If two people both had the power to do whatever they wanted with no repercussions, as the ring of Gyges would allow them to do, Glaucon thinks that both would end up following the path of the unjust, and be better and happier for it. The just person wearing the ring could do unjust acts but still keep his reputation for justice. Glaucon says, â€Å"No one believes justice to be a good when it is kept private, since, wherever either person thinks he can do injustice with imputiny, he does it† (360c). This leads to his third point. Glaucon thinks that the completely unjust person is much happier than the just person. The ideal unjust person is able to attain everything they could ever want and need, while being honored and praised by those around him for seeming like a just person. Oppositely, the ideal just person is just but doesn’t care about seeming just, thus leading others to believe he is unjust, possibly for his whole life. When the two are compared side by side, it is clear how the unjust person is happy, but not how the just person is happy. Socrates must take certain steps to disprove Thrasymachus’s position on justice. Because the origin story is the key point of Glaucon’s argument, Socrates must show why this origin story seems right but is not. In order to do this, he needs to present a new origin story that shows exactly how justice is instrinsic. Socrates decides that in order to do this he must start by looking at justice in a large sense, then narrow it down to a smaller sense. To outline this process, he states, â€Å"We say, don’t we, that there is the justice of a single man and also the justice of a whole city? And a city is larger than a single man? Perhaps, then there is more justice in the larger thing, and it will be easier to learn what it is. So, if you’re willing, let’s first find out what sort of thing justice is in a city and afterwards look for it in the individual observing the ways in which the smaller is similar to the larger† (368d-369a). In order to look for justice in the city, Socrates must map out an ideal and perfectly just city. By showing the exact specifications of this perfect city, including the classes, functions, and virtues of the people, Socrates can undermine Thrasymachus’s argument and answer Glaucon’s challenge. To define justice and to answer the many questions surrounding justice is one of the main topics of Plato’s The Republic, and Socrates sets out to find these answers for the remainder of the book.

Bad Decision-Making in Hamlet Essay -- Shakespeare plays, story analysi

Are you too quick to make important decisions? Do you act before you think? These quick decisions are common in the play Hamlet. Hamlet was written by William Shakespeare in 1589. The play takes place in Denmark. The protagonist is a prince named Hamlet. Hamlet’s father suddenly dies, and Hamlet’s mother, Queen Gertrude, decides to marry Hamlet’s uncle, King Claudius. Hamlet slowly goes insane, and he wants revenge on the murderer of his father. Laertes, the son of the king’s associate, makes a bad decision in the play. When Laertes’ father, Polonius, is killed, Laertes is outraged and seeks vengeance. Laertes made a bad decision in the play, but he could have tried using the decision-making process, weighing possible alternatives, and he could have changed the outcome of the play if he had made careful decisions. Laertes’ main decision in Hamlet was how to seek revenge on Prince Hamlet for killing Polonius. There are seven steps to the decision-making process. First, Laertes had to identify the decision that had to be made. Laertes did follow this step by looking for a solution of his father’s death. Next, Laertes should have gathered information relevant to his situation. Instead of this step, Laertes automatically assumed that he had to kill someone without knowing what really happened to Polonius. Then, Laertes should have identified his alternatives of the decision. Laertes did not explore alternative in the play. He immediately met with the king and decided to kill Prince Hamlet without looking at different ways to approach the situation. After exploring alternatives, Laertes should have weighed the evidence of the situation. The only evidence that Laertes had was the king’s word that Hamlet... ...the king. By killing the king, they put Denmark in better hands, and they save both of their lives. Also, Ophelia and Hamlet could get married and take the throne. Just by changing Laertes decision, the ending of Hamlet completely changes. Everyone is alive and healthy, except for King Claudius, and Denmark is not taken over by Fortinbras, an officer of a foreign country. By using the decision-making process, creating alternatives, and choosing the best outcome, Laertes would have completely changed the play, Hamlet. Laertes could have used steps two, three and four of the decision-making process to make an educated decision. Also, Laertes may have wanted to explore his many alternatives and outcomes before making his decision. Lastly, Laertes should have talked to Hamlet about the death of Polonius. Think before you act, and do not be too quick to judge.

Assignment of Organisation

Explore organisational structure and culture LO2 (3. 2): Examine different approaches to management and leadership and theories of organisation LO3 (3. 3): Examine the relationship between motivational theories LO4 (3. 4): Demonstrate an understanding of working with others, teamwork, groups and group dynamics. P1: (3. 1. 01): Compare and contrast different organisational structures and culture P2: (3. 1. 02): Analyse the relationship between an organisation’s structure and culture and the effects on business performance P3 (3. 1. 03): Analyse the factors which influence individual behaviour at work P4: (3. 2. 1)Analyse how organisational theory underpins principles and practices of organising and of management P5: (3. 2. 02): Compare the different approaches to management and theories of organisation used by two organisations P6: (3. 3. 01): Discuss different leadership styles and the effectiveness of these leadership approaches P7: (3. 3. 02): Explain the different motivatio nal theories and their application within the workplace P8: (3. 3. 03): Assess the relationship between motivation theory and the practice of management P9: (3. 4. 01): describe the nature of groups and group behaviour within organisations P10: (3. 4. 2): Investigate the factors that lead to effective teamwork and the influences that threaten success P11 (3. 4. 03): Evaluate the impact of technology on team functioning within a given organisation

The Great Depression And Dust Bowl - 2250 Words

In the decades leading up to the 1920s, industry in America boomed. Not only were monopolies created but mass production of many goods was the source of an economic boom. During the 1920s the economic boom led to some of the best times in history. However, later in the decade, devastation came in the form of the Great Depression and Dust Bowl. These two factors left a sour taste in the mouthes of Americans as they moved into the thirties. The drastic difference between the economic high and low of the 1920s are due to a combination of the economic boom at the beginning of the decade and the Great Depression at the end, with numerous factors in between these two bookend events. During the best of the decade there was economic boom,†¦show more content†¦Vertical Integration is the controlling of all parts of the manufacturing process, from obtaining raw materials to sale of the final product. This allowed for many corporations to completely run this industry and contro l the market. Hence, by 1890, things were out of hand and thus the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was implemented. This act outlawed trusts and any other monopolies in order for their to be more competition and less fixed price enterprises (Boyer). The most important long term effect that the period of Robber Barons vs Captains of Industry had was its creation of an economic boom and a bull market that lasted a long time. Not only were there economic improvements but also social. The impact of war on the home front left room for women to establish themselves in the work place and for other social reforms to take place. The 1920s were just a time of great economic success, there were also very positive social movements too. The main social movement that took place was the Harlem Renaissance. The Harlem Renaissance was a time of increased African American literature and art that formed a movement. This movement, the Harlem Renaissance, came from the Harlem areas of New York City and was the first cultural specific movement in this era. Due to the mass migration to the urban cities of the northeast from 1914-1918, many blacks began to establish themselves in certain areas, such as Harlem. Those