Answer The Following Questions In At Least Two Paragraphs

Answer The Following Questions In A Minimum Of1 2 Paragraphseachbe S

Answer the following questions in a minimum of 1-2 paragraphs each. Be sure to explain your answers and give reasons for your views. Explain Plato's Utopian vision for a just society. In your view, what would be some of the beneficial or harmful effects of a society based solely on merit, as Plato proposed? To determine citizens' aptitudes and talents, Plato favored testing them while they are young. Is it possible to discover the best career for someone this way? What about people who discover or develop their true talents later in life? Is Plato too optimistic about the ease of discovering a person's true calling? Don't we reward athletes, doctors, lawyers, and business executives according to their merit and not by democratic vote? Should our leaders be chosen the same way, as Plato suggests? Why or why not? Respond to the Philosophy Now exercise questions on page 363 concerning "Merit or Equality: Who Gets to Live?" Hobbes believes that there is no such thing as justice until the Leviathan is established. This means that justice does not exist independently of an authority to define and enforce it. Explain why you agree or disagree with this view.

Paper For Above instruction

Plato's utopian vision for a just society is rooted in his philosophy that justice can only be achieved when individuals fulfill their designated roles based on innate qualities and talents. In his work "The Republic," Plato envisions a society where rulers, auxiliaries, and producers each perform their specific functions, with the rulers—those who possess wisdom—governing for the good of all. This stratified society is governed by a philosopher-king, who combines wisdom, virtue, and knowledge, ensuring harmony and justice. Plato's ideal society emphasizes the importance of justice as a harmony achieved through the appropriate ordering of societal roles, positing that rulers should be selected based on their intellectual and moral virtues, rather than wealth or popularity.

A society founded solely on merit, as proposed by Plato, could have both beneficial and harmful effects. On the positive side, it could promote efficiency and excellence by rewarding individuals according to their talents and efforts, thereby motivating people to develop their abilities and strive for excellence. Such a system might reduce mediocrity and favoritism, fostering a culture that values skill and contribution. However, the potential downsides are significant. Merit-based systems might overlook social and economic inequalities, marginalizing those who develop their talents later in life or who face barriers to early testing and education. It could also lead to an overly rigid social hierarchy where individuals are confined to predetermined roles, limiting social mobility and diversity. Plato's method of testing young citizens to determine their aptitudes raises questions about whether it is feasible or ethical to finalize a person's career path so early, as some individuals discover new talents or passions later in life. The assumption that true calling is immediately discoverable may be overly optimistic, given that personal growth and changing interests can alter one's aptitudes over time.

In contemporary society, meritocracy influences the rewarding of various professions—athletes, doctors, lawyers, and business executives are often chosen based on demonstrated ability, performance, and skill rather than popularity or democratic consensus. However, applying this to political leadership raises complex questions. While merit-based selection seems logical for skilled professions, leadership involves ethical judgment, empathy, and balance that are difficult to assess through testing alone. Plato's idea of selecting leaders based on wisdom and merit echoes modern debates about the qualifications necessary for effective governance. Nonetheless, democratic voting processes incorporate public values and preferences that merit alone may not capture. Leaders are often elected based on popularity, policies, or ideology, reflecting democratic principles rather than strict merit. Whether leaders should be chosen solely on merit depends on the values prioritized—efficiency and expertise versus representation and popular sovereignty. Given the complexities of human judgment and societal needs, a combination of merit-based criteria and democratic participation might be the most balanced approach.

Regarding Hobbes' perspective that justice is dependent on an authoritative sovereign or Leviathan, this view has both compelling and problematic aspects. Hobbes argues that in a state of nature, there is no real justice or injustice because the absence of a governing authority leaves humans in a perpetual state of conflict. Justice, in his view, is established only when a sovereign enforces laws, creating a framework within which moral and legal obligations are clear. I tend to agree with Hobbes' emphasis on the importance of authority in maintaining order, as history shows that without a central authority, societies tend to descend into chaos and anarchy. Laws and justice depend on a shared agreement enforced by a governing body, which provides stability and predictability. Without such enforcement, individuals might act according to self-interest, and any notions of justice would lack practical effect.

However, this perspective can be criticized for undermining the intrinsic value of justice as a moral principle independent of authority. Some philosophies argue that justice and morality are inherent qualities that should guide human behavior regardless of external enforcement. Relying solely on a central authority to define and enforce justice risks neglecting the moral agency of individuals and the possibility of justice emerging from communal or universal moral standards. Nonetheless, in practical terms, Hobbes' view highlights the necessity of some form of authority to prevent societal collapse, especially in complex civilizations where cooperation and order are vital. Therefore, while I agree that justice requires enforcement to be meaningful, I also believe that moral considerations should inform and guide the laws enacted by such authorities to foster genuine justice rooted in moral principles, not just power.

References

1. Plato. (2000). The Republic (G. M. A. Grube, Trans.). Hackett Publishing Company.
2. Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. Cambridge University Press.
3. Annas, J. (2011). An Introduction to Plato's Republic. Oxford University Press.
4. MacIntyre, A. (2007). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. University of Notre Dame Press.
5. Scanlon, T. M. (1998). What We Owe to Each Other. Harvard University Press.
6. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
7. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books.
8. Raz, J. (2009). Morality of Freedom. Oxford University Press.
9. Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press.
10. Friedman, M. (2002). Capitalism and Freedom. University of Chicago Press.