Phil 103 Midterm 4

.docx

School

University of Rochester *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

103

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

4

Uploaded by ElderNarwhal3820

2. What main arguments does Socrates give, in the Crito , for the conclusion that it would be wrong for him to escape and evade his death sentence? What are some objections and potential replies? How might we critique even the best version of Socrates’ argument in the Crito ? What do you think about the extent of our obligation to obey the law? Premise: P1One should never do anything that is ethically wrong, and P2: for Socrates to attempt to escape and evade his death penalty would be ethically wrong. Support to P2: 1.Argu from Consequences: it is ethically wrong to bring sign harm to laws and state, even for self- preservation. And attempt to escape will ….. Therefore, P2 2.Argu from Agreement: a long time citizen should obey the laws of the state. And It is always eth wrong to break… Thus, it is ethic wrong for a long-time citizen to break… + Socrates is a long time citizen, so P2 Objections: if the law of states is unjust, than to obey it is ethically wrong, which contradict with P1 Revision: only obey just laws…, and Socrates trial was conducted fairly, according to just laws…, so it would be wrong for S to escape. Final Objection: can escape without denying/doing harm to the authority/the laws (by claiming that the authority/state is right, but still run) 3. What is the definition of merely instrumental value , or a merely instrumental good ? What are some examples, and why? Similarly with non-instrumental value or non-instrumental goods . How did this distinction figure into one of the major issues we’ve looked at so far? What was one claim made by one philosopher about non-instrumental value (i.e., what did he say had non-instrumental value as well as instrumental value)? IV: things valued only for their results. E.g. Not to steal money. Non-IV: things valued only in themselves. E.g. play music for fun Major issue: Do people do just for IV or Non-IV or both. Both value: Well, is there another class, do you think, c of those which we value, both for their own sake and for their results? Such as intelligence, and sight, and health—all of which we surely welcome on both accounts. (Plato, The republic) 4. What was Glaucon’s account of the origin, nature and value of justice? (How can we illustrate his account of the origins of justice using the logic of the Prisoner’s Dilemma in a social setting with repeated interactions?)
Social Contract Theory of Justice: people are more scared of getting harmed that they won't harm others. We have more to fear than we have to gain, therefore we all come together and make laws that are our protection. It is a contract among us. Just as the the two prisons who are trapped in the “prison dillema”, they will only act for their best interest. Why did he give that account of the origin, nature and value of justice, and what was it supposed to show about justice? He wants to prove that injustice people would have a better life than justice people, and the so called justice is just the disguise of injustice. “ the story of the ring of Gyges” How did Socrates ultimately respond to that challenge (later in Plato’s Republic)? What metaphor did he use in giving his argument, and what did the various aspects of the metaphor represent in literal terms? Does NOT believe in the Social Contract Theory view. -We are inherently social. Each person has a specialty, no person is entirely self-sufficient, and we come together out of need, not fear. -Human nature is to share and exchange. It is only when we want more and more that things begin to get tricky. We must look to a larger example where it's more obvious, and that will help us see it. So we look at the state and train that vision on the individual. （ City ） How does Socrates ultimately define justice and injustice? How does that answer Glaucon’s challenge about the value of justice for the just person? What exactly does the soul have to do with this? Justice is getting all and only what they deserve. Tyran can’t be happy and the city would eventually collapse. Socrates divided people into three dividend - rational, spirited, appetitive, which refers to three parts of the soul - reason, spirit, appetite. People only have real justice when a person's soul is ruled by reason. Although the other two types of people can't do the true sense of justice, the rationality of the soul from justice can still constrain their appetite to honor and money, so that they are close to real justice. 5. What is Divine Command Theory? How does it differ from other theistic theories that might equally claim that everything that is morally wrong is also something that God commands us not to do? In other words, what sets Divine Command Theory specifically apart from the other theistic view (such as natural law theory)? Is it a form of Divine Command Theory to claim that God tells us not to commit murder because he is omniscient and therefore knows it’s wrong? Why or why not? What are some objections to Divine Command Theory, such as the evil demon objection? How might a Divine
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help