PHI 406 - Reading Response 1

:: For a detailed explanation of the assignment, please CLICK HERE ::

What would happen if you gave a mortal man almost no consequences for his actions? Would he be fair and just, or would he be selfish and unjust? Plato discusses this subject in his writing, “The Republic.”

In the selection, Plato documents a conversation with Socrates where it is said, “… those who practice justice do so involuntarily and because they have not the power to be unjust… for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust.” (p.27)

This has real world applications for the Impeachment of Donald Trump. Right now, Congress is deciding how to handle a President who may have acted like the unjust man described in Plato’s work. Can Donald Trump, the great deal maker, talk his way out of the charges against him? According to Plato, that might be the only way that he stays in office. He writes, “he must be the one who can speak with effect, if any of his deeds come to light, and who can force his way where force is required…” (p. 28)

The hypothesis that a man will act only as just as he is needed to seem just, and that he will be as unjust as his position and power allow, is one of the accusations made against the President. Did he commit a crime with the Ukraine call? Plato seems to think that at the end of the day, it really doesn’t matter because what you are thought of is more important than whether or not you’re actually unjust. If people think you’re just and fair, you can be as smarmy as you want behind closed doors. “(For) the highest reach of injustice is: to be deemed just when you are not.” (p. 28) Plato goes on to describe how a just man who is thought unjust will suffer while the unjust man who seems just will honor the gods. Now to see how Congress acts on the unjust President who is thought of as just and honored by the gods by his fan base, but who is actually smarmy and unjust. What’s left to see is if he will be punished.

------------
Grade: 9/10
No Professor Comments.

PHI 406 - Reading Response Intro and Explanation

I'm taking Philosophy 406 - "Moral Dilemmas" which is basically Political Philosophy.  The bulk of our grade is what he calls "reading responses." Here is his description of the assignment: 

Throughout the semester, you are required to write a total of eight responses to the assigned readings. These responses can take a number of forms; you may raise a substantive question about the assigned reading, you may raise an objection to the author’s claim(s), you may present a problem that the author may have overlooked, you may bring up an application that the author does not explicitly discuss, you may compare and contrast what the author says in light of one of the previous authors we have studied, etc. Given that the course focuses (largely) in applied philosophy, it is encouraged that you find examples from real life (e.g., from the news) with which to connect the theories we are reading.

Your response should engage the readings in significant way. That is, quoting a few lines from the readings (or, summarizing a key idea expressed in it) followed by a well-developed and thorough response is ideal. Quoting a large chunk from the text and adding just a couple of lines of your own thoughts is far less than ideal (read: not worth full credit). The responses should be approximately 250 words in length.

Also, these responses are intended to stimulate class discussion, so they need be on the assigned readings for the class meeting. For this reason, you need to be present in class in order to turn in your response. Feel free to drop off your response at the instructor’s desk before the beginning of the class; this way, they can be included to the lecture at appropriate points.