Ethics

Ethics Study Guide Rawls believed in a fair viewpoint of justice regarding each member of society, in which social cooperation is followed by a form of established government. In advance, the members of this hypothetical society are to decide what is acceptable, determining the principles of justice. The thought is that no one knows the details of their societal standing. This veil of ignorance, the key concept of this scenario, allows for judgments to be impartial. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1712-1778 C.E.) attempts to thread a path between the philosophies of Hobbes and Locke, trying to solve the problem of legitimacy in organized human society. Hobbes gives an argument for survival: submit to the social contract, and relinquish any other rights. Locke preserves rights, and supports very limited government that operates by majority vote, limiting the Ruler. Can majorities be speculatively wrong? Is every majority vote legitimate? Lock has to say yes, allowing only for a written constitution (also terminable by the majority) to protect us from the mob. Rousseau sees that, while either of these schemas can work (both have), both are legitimate only by chance. Rousseau insists that Society, the product of the first unanimous Contract, carries the true will of the people, the General Will. The General Will is distinct from the State, a product of a majority vote, which can only give us the Will of All. According to Rousseau, therefore, Locke is wrong in his insistence that the majority is always right, or at least that there is no conceivable power to place against the majority, and Hobbes is wrong in his abandonment of liberty in the name of security. Even though Rousseau and Hobbes did agree on some political issues, they did not agree on the aspect of the social contract. Hobbes believed in following the social contract of the ruler until one’s life is threatened. While Rousseau states an understanding of this notion, he believed that people should follow their free will, which allows for everyone’s freedom. This equates to the existence of people within a community and what kind of solidarity they can create within a community. Socrates (469-399 B.C.E.) was an ancient Greek philosopher who is widely credited for laying the foundation for western philosophy. By far the most important source of information about Socrates is Plato, who depicts him as a contradictory character. Plato’s dialogues feature Socrates, a teacher who denies having disciples, as a man of reason who obeys a divine voice in his head, and a pious man who is executed for religious improprieties. Socrates disparages the pleasures of the senses, yet is excited by youthful beauty. He is devoted to the education of the boys of Athens, yet indifferent to his own sons; few other characters have so fascinated the western world. The trial and execution of Socrates was the climax of his career and the central event of the dialogues of Plato. According to Plato, however, both were unnecessary. Socrates admits in court that he could have avoided his trial in the first place by abandoning philosophy, and going home to mind his own business. After his court conviction, he could have avoided the death penalty by agreeing to pay a small fine, and one in prison, he could have escaped. Socrates participated in his famous martyrdom every step of the way, and his story supplies, one way or the other, the foundation for western philosophy. Socrates: The Crito is one of four stories that tells of Socrates’ trial and death and describes why he stood by his reasoning for not escaping from prison. Escaping from prison was not unheard of during the days of Athens, so Socrates’ friend, Crito, cane to see him with a plan on how to do so. Socrates ©2018 Achieve Page 113 of 116