See attached links
1) What is Thrasymachus’ definition of justice? Very briefly explain this definition in your own words. 2) Given that Thrasymachus claims this the one true definition of justice, how would he explain the evident fact that the laws and moralities of different societies in different times and places have often reflected very different standards of right and wrong in those societies? You must include the Greek word, pleonexia, at least once. (Remember that in this context ‘justice’ relates not only to laws but also to moral values in general.) 3) How would the junta use Thrasymachus’ definition of justice to argue that P has no reasonable basis for condemning T’s social and political policies? In other words, what is it about the nature of justice as Thrasymachus defines it that implies P’s condemnation of T makes no sense? WARNING for part 3: “We define justice our way and you define justice your way, so leave us alone!” is not by itself an adequate answer. A philosophically meaningful answer must provide a well-reasoned argument for its conclusions. 4) Briefly explain the main points of Plato’s theory of forms. Include in your explanation a description of both the metaphysical and epistemological functions of the forms. (It is very difficult to understand the theory only by reading the Republic. The instructor explained the theory in class lectures.) 5) How would the governing council of P use Plato’s theory of forms to argue that P does have a reasonable basis for condemning T’s social and political policies? You must include the Greek word, eidos, at least once. In other words, what is it about the nature of justice according to P that implies P’s condemnation of T does make sense? 6) Finally, how would someone who accepts Plato’s theory of forms explain the evident fact that the laws of different societies in different times and places have often reflected very different standards of right and wrong in those societies? (Remember that in this context ‘justice’ relates not only to laws but also to moral values in general.) WARNING for part 5: “Our definition of justice is right and your definition of justice is wrong!” is not by itself an adequate answer. A philosophically meaningful answer must provide a well- reasoned argument for its conclusions.
