The problem is to see what is ethical and unethical. Plato's brother I believe is giving a certain scenario of an unethical man that finds a ring that allows him to turn invisible, and asks if a ethical person would do the same things as the unethical person. A possible solution is to show Plato's brother if this scenario were to happen how someone would be able to stop this from happening and giving it to an ethical person. Another way to solve this problem is by simply giving a counter example to the one that Plato's brother gave.
The problem in the dialogue “why be moral” presents is how justice or injustice can affect human beings due to the way they are perceived. According to the text, people want to be just for the sake of the benefits, because by being just, they will have good reputation and therefore will be admired. This will make many men want to appear just, for appearance will bring them status and good reputation. On the other hand, unjust men are unjust because they want to be like that. They do not want do deceive anybody. They just want to be happy with whom they are. However, when men commit injustices, other men can be negatively affected. Thus, the problem being that human beings are, according to the dialogue, born unjust and some want to be just only for the profit it brings in our society.
In my opinion, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to find a solution to this problem. It is human nature to want benefits in life at any cost. However tolerance for others can reduce this problem, because they can create a community standard. However, as mentioned above, some human beings will want to just appear just for the gains this appearance can bring them, such as not being punished by law. Therefore, a community standard minimizes the problem but does not fix it because it will not bring a civil society, which seems impossible.
Before I even begin to address this article, I feel it necessary to identify the assumption: the goal in life
is to benefit oneself and do what ever you want. In everything you do, that is the ultimate goal.
This article proposes that justice in and of itself is nothing more than a mediator among mankind- necessary to all but wanted by none. It is “the lesser evil” that must be tolerated-and exploited whenever the opportunity presents itself, as long as one retains the image of seeming just. It is pursued only for its results – and if the results are all that is desired why not just appear just? Injustice gets you what you want, and that being the greatest benefit, the ultimate goal, who cares if it harms anyone else? You just need to look out and make sure no one else is being unjust, because that would be of the greatest evil. So in the end you go about life looking for loopholes and the easiest ways to achieve your goal
…Which leads us to our problem: The problem is how can a desire for true justice, which ultimately translates into a true desire to from a community standard and a civil society, be related with an honest conversation? How can one honestly say that justice is to be pursued for it itself and not its image? The crisis here is if we cannot do this, we cannot establish a need for a civil society.
The problem in this article is that people are only considering their own benefit- they have been told to be just but they have not been taught why justice is necessary, and the result is the search for loopholes in order to benefit themselves ( a bunch of grade hounds ☺). The solution is to undermine the previously mentioned assumption, because that is the only way you can begin to develop a civil society- establish an honest conversation and challenge the instinct of benifiting only oneself- for nothing great is easy.
Problem: If, as the article suggests, it is crucial to appear to be a man of justice, but that those who are truly men of injustice succeed more than those who are just, than what can cause people to strive to be both truly just while appearing just, instead of simply appearing just while being truly unjust and deceitful?
Possible Solution: In order to achieve a CS2, one of the fundamental "building blocks" needed is an honest conversation. By definition, an honest conversation is unachievable if every member (or any member) of the society in question is basing their livelihoods off of lies and deceit in order to benefit themselves. members of a society cannot pretend to be just if they are not truly so (they must "practice what the preach"). Without this honest conversation, all hope for a CS1 is lost and the society in question will eventually descend into chaos due to the lack of civility and order. This striving towards civility is what causes a society to remain a functioning society. I think this is what ought to cause a person to appear just AND be a just person at heart. It is in our nature, as human beings, to focus on obtaining organization and order. A desinigration of our coveted order is something we avoid. Therefore, I hypothesize that our need for order (and therefore actual, not "pretend", justice) is greater than our desire for personal gain (which is obtained through "pretend" justice and actual injustice). It is this need for order and organization that causes us to truly be just, because, by not being truly just, we are sacrificing the honest conversation and therefore the CS2 and CS1.
The problem of this article, is as the title says initially, why should one be moral. Upon reading into the excerpt however it becomes a matter of not only why should one be just or moral but even more so why one should be immoral and unjust. The problem now seems to be about why should one ever be just. As stated through several examples, one man who is just and one unjust are compared by the reasonings that underly their choices of being either just or unjust. One plausible solution to this problem, should one be just over being unjust, is that the rewards and results of being unjust far outweighs the results of one being spotlessly just. One who is unjust may seize power, gain immense personal wealth and fortune, sin as he pleases, repent for those sins he had committed, and may very well ultimately end up seeing the pleasure of the gods at his judgement. This while the man who being just his whole life lives in poverty and in his decrepit state, while being honored for his good deeds of justice, still does not face the wrath of the gods. The two men, complete polar opposites of each other, both end up in the same state. Yet during the physical life of the two men the just man suffered pain and torture, praised as he was, but the unjust man lived in grandeur and pleasure. Thus, it can safely be said that no man, no matter the circumstances unless by some divine power, would by the power of his own will will lead a just life. The interest of man lies in the rewards, not in the consideration of others, therefore, any man, would be wise to do so in leading a life of unjustness, and repenting to clear him of any unjust deeds he may have committed, to allow him to still find the favor of the gods yet still having lead the life of a great emperor.
I think the problem of the article is that people act in their Self Interest and are often judged by many outsiders, and that being said, the decision of whether someones act is immoral or moral, good or bad, good or evil (etc.) cannot necessarily be made because when someone acts in their SI, it is always right for that individual.
A possible solution may be to develop some kind of standard or guidelines (referring to the article) in which the God's are able to put forth judgement that is equal. If all must follow the particular standard, the judgement is seen as equal because they are no longer working in just their self interest and can now be fairly judged.
So the question in the article is "is to be just better than unjust?" and right away without reading the article I said yes...but then as i read the article my answered changed. Plato said that their are people who appear just for the honours and rewards that people get for being just, but those people only appear just because its necassary not because its right or good. Then just appearing just is actually unjust. Then making the life of the unjust better than the people who are actually just. If you can just appear to be just but still unjust and get rewards and good reputations then why wouldn't you just appear to just and not actually just. Then the people who are actually just get punished and scoulded and then they realize that its actually better to be unjust than just. And if thats the case then being just and unjust lead to the same point. One is suppose to be the greater good and the other the greater evil. If there are no people actually being just then there is no fair reasoning to be put into anything...everything would be through dishonesty and unfairness.
If the people who appear to be just didnt get the awards and honors they did for appearing to be just then there would be no reason to pretend to be just then they would be treated as they are, unjust. If people were taught of as young that to be just should be praised and the injustice sensored then people would be watching out for themselves because they would be afraid to do wrong. If the community standard was set where justice is the greater good and injustice it the greatest evil then people would actually want to be just for the rewards that are magnified with being just and to avoid being unjust for the consequences. And not only that teaching people at a young age what is just and what unjust is and the just is good and unjust is bad then people wouldnt just want to ne jusdt for the rewards but for doing to right thing.
The problem in Why Be Moral is that people are being unjust because they can have a "better life" than the just. Because of this theory, more people are turning toward the unjust, or unethical, ways. Despite people turning toward injustice, children are being taught to be just. This is not to be considered a good thing because they are not being trained to do right, but they are being trained to have a "good reputation" and "good character." The only people who tend to practice justice in the society are the absolutists and/or religious; neither of which can create a civil society on their own. The people of the society are also being convinced that if the make "unlawful gains" or do things unethical, they will not be punished.
The people in the society must work for justice for the sake of doing what is right, not for the sake of character and reputation. The people should realize that by doing injustice, they will be severely punished later on. If they start working for justice by doing what is right, or being ethical, they will lose all wants of injustice. In so doing, the people who have turned to justice from injustice must have tolerance for those who have been unjust. By starting a chain of justice, the society will be able to create a community standard, thus leading to a civil society.
I believe that what the article is questioning is whether it is better to be just or unjust. If we were to live in a society where all actions had to be just, all our decisions would have to be absolute without any exceptions. If you violated any law you would be punished no questions asked because that would be what would be fair. I think this is what we are currently attempting to do in order to create a civil society because law and order tries to justify the world. However we do have exceptions and I think this is on the right path, because everything is not always in just black and white. If we were to live in an unjust society I think it our decisions would be moral relativist related. This would be a society in which every individual would be doing what he/she wanted to do without questioning it, because everything you would achieve would be ethical. There would be no community standard therefore, no civil society, whereas in a just society they are at least trying to create a community standard no matter how critical and strict that might be. The standard created is telling you what is right and wrong and you are to follow it without questioning the process. I think the solution to this problem is to find some sort of medium in between where people could reason and think about their decisions before making them to accomplish a seemingly just goal.
The conflict of Why Be Moral is a question. Is justice really just? Also, if one is not caught in doing an “unjust” act, is he really being “unjust?”
The solution is that the unjust should be honored more than the just. The unjust is true and the just is a mere appearance to make society (others) feel good about your actions and well being. It is better to look just, and be unjust.
The problem of the article is if we should live as just people but be treated as if we were injust and suffer all the consequences and even the consequences that perhaps may come after death and be punished by a god if one exist or If we should live as injust men and be treated as if we were a just person and receive every reward that comes with being just and if what philosophers say is true you may merely pray to the gods and make sacrifices for them so you may not be punished by a divine being. But the main problem is if we must live as injust men and be seen as a just being. Or truly be just and be seen as the worst injust human being.
The Problem: The problem is that we cannot define the just actions as being the "right" thing to do, and that the unjust actions may actually benefit us greater as long as we mask ourselves in society as being just.
A Possible Solution: Perhaps a possible solution would be to teach society why we have a community standard and the reason each portion is in place. This may help to persuade people to do right more than wrong. Another maybe more compelling argument would be to reward the just-doers so that the unjust "rewards" are cancelled by the just "rewards".
Problem of article: just and unjust-
The unjust tend to enjoy themselves more than just people, because they have the benefit of doing and getting what they want (in an unjust way) without getting caught of paying the consequences. Therefore, just people seem unjust by doing what thet should be doing because it's the right thing to do, and when they make a mistake, they get judged by the external sanctions of society.
A possible solution to this problem would be to let the just be just and the unjust be unjust, because you are not taking anything away from them, you are simply giving them the choice of doing what they like whether that be just or unjust. Also, if they choose to be just and they get judged by society, it is only because that is what they chose to do.
The problem: Socrates believes that to be just is always better then to be unjust, he needs to convince that he is right.
Well the solution is clear. If the issue is whether being just or unjust is what's "right", then its a matter of what's morally right and wrong. So, there needs to be some kinds of community standard that justifies what is right and what is wrong, not based on what's illegal and legal, because many laws are unjust, so pretty much the issue is self interest vs judgement, so by determining what is morally acceptable, you can justify that being just is better than unjust, and by doing so, you can have a Cs1.
The Problem: The idea of morality is just a sense of a feeling of comfort and that there is no need to be moral to keep up a civil society by just maintaining the letter of the law.
The Possible Solution: The possible solution might be that even if morality might not play a key part of a civil society, there cannot be no morals to uphold the spirit of the law, which in turn upholds the letter of the law, and morality should still be kept in place widely shown in the letter of the law convincing the civil society to believe that there should be morality kept in the community standard.
The problem presented in this article is that the ideal state of existence would be power-seeking where we had complete freedom to indulge ourselves BUT there would be others seeking that same power thus causing chaos.
A possible solution would be compromise, if you are able and willing to compromise problems will be solved, and limit out covetous minds seeking for power and control.
I think that the problem in the article is that being unjust yields more rewards and a better life life than being just. Perhaps one of the solutions is that we do not reward the evil man and instead reward the right man. Perhaps another solution is that we just follow our self interest by appearing just and being unjust.
Identify the Problem of the Article
The problem of this article is whether to be just, is always better than being unjust. Though society pushes and enforces the idea that being just is “good” and being unjust is “bad”, the author points out numerous points in the article why being unjust may be much more beneficial to the individual than being just. The argument with this is that to be just towards oneself, one needs to be unjust because they will be able to get more out of by being able to make unlawful gains without getting into trouble.
Identify a Possible Solution
Although in the article, the author pushes for the idea that unjust can be a good thing, it will not help society. In being unjust, the individual has one’s own self- interest in mind. By being unjust, the individual doesn’t care in what tactics one has to take in order to achieve the goal, the individual just cares if they can make an unlawful gain and get away with it and can even reach a point of being considered moral relativism which society cannot use to operate on. Although by being unjust, an individual can get much more accomplished indicating society could use a little bit of injustice; a society is not about an individual. When unjust is involved, the individual just cares about getting to the result, not giving a damn on how exactly they got there. On the other hand, by being just, an individual will never get anything unless it is earned. Though people can argue that by working for it is not worth it, these people fail to understand it is the process that is taken to earn the product that is valuable, not the end product AKA results.
The problem of this article is whether or not justice is a good or bad thing to have in a civil society. In order to keep the peace in a society, you need to put in place some sort of law and order. It is needed to insure the safety of its members. Justice is needed to bring those who try to deviate from the path of the community standard into facilitation of others. A possible solution would be to have justice, but install a safeguard to make sure the people judging others do not start to abuse their power.
The problem is whether justice or injustice is better. The solution to the problem is to show what they do to the possessor.
1. The article identifies two types of people- those who are just and those who are unjust. It says that those who are just but seem unjust do not delve into the fortunes and prizes that belong to those who are at the highest level of injustice (doing the worst deeds while seeming just). The problem here is that we are taught to be just yet the spoils go to those who are unjust (like Roberto in summer assignment number three). Should people be just because of the intrinsic value if there is any or should we enjoy the spoils of life through unjust deeds.
2. It is tempting to go ahead and say that being unjust is better because of the rewards, but is that really the right way to go? The way we achieve our goals is by the process we take. For example, many CEOs of major corporations today are shunned for moving manufacturing out of the country to make the same products and try to achieve greater results. They took the process of moving to a cheaper labor force even if the products are of lesser quality- they still get more money though. Is it really just the result that matters? In today's society we are moving in that direction as proven by the last example, inflated grades, corruption in politics, etc. The proper way to go would to be just but everyone would have to be just in order to get close to a CS1. Plato (the other one, not me) also mentions that if everyone was unjust we would not have to watch each other and we were our own judges which seems to be M.R. which cannot work. On the other hand, everyone being just could be absolutism unless there is a flexible CS2 in place therefore eliminating absolutism. Lastly, Glaucon talks about a shepherd who found a ring that could turn him invisible. He could use this ring to do whatever pleased him without anyone knowing or able to export judgement upon him due to their lack of evidence. This is another form of M.R. and taking the route of being unjust. The shepherd could use the ring to do good deeds without anyone knowing and not receiving credit. The intrinsic value may not seem like much when taking the just route but what if everyone was taking the just route. Sadly, however, this is more of a utopia than a solution for the world but it can be the solution for an individual.
Problem: What is just and what is unjust?
Possible Solution: Justice is that of which is praised by itself and is the compromise of what is unjust, and the unjust is the start, before what is just. Just is what benefits to the other people.
HOW CAN THE SOLUTION BE HONEST WHEN THE CONVERSATION IS NOT?
State Of The Union