Al-amin Balogun(214517122)

Prof: Stefan Rodde

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

TA: Dan Barron

Phil 2015

Essay 1

Nov 14, 2018

Word Count- 1602

Injustice and The Good Life: A Parallel

The good life, according to most philosophers is a life that has been lived well and was full of flourishing. In order to live a life full of flourishing, one had to be virtuous and possess some values which would enable them to be virtuous. The achievement of a good life was one of the main problems posed to philosophers. They were three questions which philosophers asked: i)What does a flourishing life consist of ll)What were the things necessary to achieve it iii)How does one acquire these things. A flourishing life was was which had been lived under certain conditions. Knowledge was one of the main things necessary. One had to have had years of training in various disciplines. This knowledge of things and rigorous training ensured that would be able to reason and master his desires, enabling such a person live a good life. The ones who had acquired or were in the process of acquiring these necessary things were the philosophers and therefore they were the only ones capable of attaining the wisdom necessary to live a good life.

The argument for if justice is a necessary condition to live a good life is polarizing. In book I of the republic, Socrates and Thrasymachus have a discussion. “Thrasymachus defines justice as the advantage or what is beneficial to the stronger” He also claims that injustice is better than justice in every way. He believed that the unjust person who had committed an unjust act and gotten away with it was better off than the just person. The problem with Thrasymachus’ definition is that only those in a position of power deserved justice. His definition was the very definition of injustice. It makes sense that the unjust person who commits an unjust act and does not get caught is better off at that moment that the just person however. The implication is that he believed that satisfaction of our desires was ultimate and the ends justified whatever means used to satisfy them. His view leaves a lot of room for a myriad of degenerative activities. If the acquisition of worldly goods was the key to happiness, then the theory would make sense. There wouldn’t be any justice but at least