Human Nature and Moral Theory in Plato’s Republic Essay -- Plato Repub

Human Nature and Moral Theory in Platos RepublicIn Chapter 2 of Republic, Glaucon uses the fabrication of the Lydian Shepherd to portray a pessimistic view of human genius. Plato, the author of Republic, uses his brother Glaucon to tell the Myth of the Lydian Shepherd. We are led to believe that Plato takes the myth and its implications on human nature very seriously by use of a personal character. The assembly line, earlier given by Thrasymachus, contends that at the root of our human nature we exclusively yearn for the most profit possible. It also contends that any man will act immorally if given free reign. The theory proves unplausible due to circularity in the argument and implications that prove untrue. Thrasymachus approaches Socrates, the main character of Republic and most of Platos work, during a conversation on the topic of morality. The aggressive Thrasymachus interjects his own feel morality is the advantage of the stronger. (Republic 338c) Upon clarificati on, Thrasymachus lays out his view of socially defecated moral relativism, as opposed to Socrates moral objectivism. Thrasymachus illustrates his view by citing how different types of government create laws serving purposes specific to each government, a democracy passing parliamentary laws, a dictatorship making dictatorial laws In doing so each government makes it clear that what is right and moral for its subjects is what is to its own advantage. (Republic 338e)Thrasymachus also argues that it is positive to live an immoral life rather than a moral one. He says, morality and right are actually good for someone else and hurtful for the underling at the receiving end of the orders the opposite is true for immorality the offender lords it over those ... ...l men desire power and superiority. However this argument raises inconsistencies because Thrasymachus job implies that every person in power attained that position incite by the desire to commit large-scale immoral actio ns. The Collapse literary argument shows that the implications of Thrasymachus Argument lead to an inevitable social collapse. Since non all societies stick out collapsed, some other motivation must have impelled individuals to want positions of power. In addition, Thrasymachus could not adequately support the second premise of his argument without a defense that leads both Premise 2 and conclusion C to circularity. Thus the argument presented by Thrasymachus and Glaucon is implausible, and the moral relativism that emerges from their line of reasoning is not proven. Work CitedBloom, Allan. The Republic of Plato, New York Basic Books, 1968.