LONG-RESPONSE QUESTIONS

In the Apology, after being found guilty, Socrates is given the opportunity to propose his own punishment. Rather than suggesting a traditional punishment, in a poor attempt of employing irony to highlight the absurdity of the charges against him, Socrates provocatively asks to be rewarded with free meals for life in the Prytaneum, a place where honored citizens of Athens dined. He justifies this by arguing that he has benefited the city by encouraging virtue and critical thinking among the youth, and therefore deserves to be treated like a benefactor. He truly does not believe he has corrupted the youth or acted unjustly, and feels justified in asking for a reward rather than fearing punishment. When this suggestion is rejected, Socrates proposes a minimal fine, only to ultimately be sentenced to death.

Despite his friend Crito’s plea, Socrates refuses to flee, basing his decision on a few key principles. (1) Socrates argues that escaping would violate his deeply held belief in justice and obedience to the laws of Athens. He reasons that, by living in Athens for his entire life and benefiting from its laws, he has implicitly agreed to abide by them, even when the outcomes are unfavorable. Escaping would mean breaking that social contract. (2) Moreover, Socrates views life as not merely about survival but about living a just and virtuous life. For him, fleeing would undermine his philosophy and principles. He remains committed to upholding justice, even if it leads to his death.

Glaucon asks Socrates to show that justice belongs to the highest class of goods, those that are valued both for their own sake and for their consequences. (1) Goods that are valued for their own sake, things we enjoy purely for the pleasure they provide. For example, simple pleasures like savoring a delicious meal are valued purely for the experience they offer. (2) Goods that are valued only for their consequences, things we pursue not because they are inherently enjoyable but because they lead to something beneficial. For example, medical treatment or exercise might be unpleasant, but we endure them. In Glaucon’s view, many people treat justice this way — they practice it not because they value it for its own sake but because it prevents negative consequences. (3) Goods that are valued both for their own sake and for their consequences: these are the highest kinds of goods; are desirable in themselves; and also bring beneficial consequences. An example might be knowledge or health.

<p>The principle of non-contradiction states that the same thing cannot do or undergo opposite actions at the same time and in the same respect. In other words, something cannot both be and not be the same thing simultaneously under the same conditions. Socrates applies this principle to demonstrate that the soul must have different parts because humans often experience conflicting desires. For example, a person might feel thirsty (a desire for something) but simultaneously resist drinking (a rational decision to refrain). In this case, Socrates identifies one part of the soul responsible for desire (the appetitive part) and another part responsible for rational decision-making (the rational part). According to the principle of non-contradiction, since the same part of the soul cannot both desire and resist something at the same time, there must be two distinct parts of the soul involved.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Utilitarianism judges actions based on their outcomes—specifically, whether they maximize overall happiness or utility. Kantian ethics evaluates actions based on adherence to moral duties or principles, regardless of the result. You are hiding a friend, and a person comes to the door asking if your friend is inside, with the clear intent to harm them. Should you lie? A utilitarian would argue that lying is the right thing to do. By lying, you prevent harm to your friend, which maximizes overall well-being and minimizes suffering. The consequences outweigh the moral wrong of lying. Kantian ethics would say that lying is morally wrong, regardless of the result. According to Kant, you must act according to maxims that can be universally applied. Since lying cannot be universally willed without contradiction, it is always morally wrong to lie. I would argue that utilitarianism—saving a life—should be the more significant moral imperative than the duty to always tell the truth.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>In Kantian ethics, an action universalizes if the principle behind it (the maxim) can be consistently applied to everyone without contradiction. If the action does not pass this test, it means that it leads to an undesirable state when applied universally. An example of an action that does not universalize is lying to get out of trouble. Suppose someone lies to avoid responsibility for a mistake. According to Kant, if this maxim were universalized, the result would be that trust in communication would collapse—nobody would believe what others say because everyone would lie. In such a world, the act of lying would become ineffective because lying presupposes that people generally tell the truth. Therefore, the maxim &quot;lie to avoid trouble&quot; leads to a contradiction when universalized: it relies on a system of truth-telling to function, but if everyone lied, that system would cease to exist. Thus, according to Kant's categorical imperative, lying in this way is morally wrong.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Kant distinguishes between two types of contradictions that can arise when testing whether a maxim (a principle guiding action) can be universalized as part of his categorical imperative. Contradiction in conception occurs when the very idea of universalizing a maxim leads to a logical contradiction. The maxim, if applied universally, would be impossible because it would undermine the concept it depends on. For example, the maxim of lying cannot be conceived as a universal law without contradiction. Contradiction in willing happens when universalizing a maxim is logically conceivable but leads to a situation that no rational being would will. For instance, if someone refused to help others in need (while still wanting help when they need it), they would find themselves in a world where no one helps each other. While this is conceivable, a rational person would not will to live in such a world.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Liberto's view on overextensive sexual promises suggests that such promises may extend beyond reasonable or realistic expectations in sexual relationships. An overextensive promise could be a commitment or assurance that involves unrealistic guarantees about emotional connection, fidelity, or future actions. For instance, a person might promise their partner that they will never find anyone else attractive or that they will never desire anyone else sexually. This promise sets an unrealistic standard, as human emotions and attractions can be complex and unpredictable. A partner might promise to always be emotionally available and responsive to the other's needs, regardless of their own circumstances. This can lead to neglecting personal needs and boundaries, which is neither healthy nor sustainable. Such overextensive promises can create pressure in relationships, lead to disappointment, and ultimately result in feelings of betrayal or inadequacy if those promises cannot be upheld.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>In this scenario, Thomson asks us to imagine waking up connected to a famous unconscious violinist whose life depends on being physiologically connected to you for nine months. If you were to disconnect from him, he would die. The scenario challenges the idea that being responsible for another's life (in this case, the violinist) automatically obligates you to sustain it. It raises the question of whether consent to sex (which can lead to pregnancy) implies consent to carry a fetus to term. It also emphasizes the importance of bodily autonomy—your right to control what happens to your body. Just because someone needs your body to survive does not mean you are morally obligated to provide that support. Moreover, the experiment encourages us to consider the moral distinction between killing (actively causing death) and letting die (withdrawing support). It suggests that withdrawing support does not equate to murder in the same way as actively killing someone does.</p> Signup and view all the answers