Short Paper 1: 1500 Words Minimum, Approximately 4 ½ Pages

Short Paper 1 1500 Words Minimummaximumapproximately 4 ½ Pages D

Your task is to compare the views – and the reasons explicitly given or implied or suggested for these views – presented in at least two of the following texts by at least two different authors: Plato's (1) Euthyphro, (2) Apology, (3) Crito; (4) King's “Letter from a Birmingham Jail"; and (5) Lao Tzu's “Living as Water” on one of the following issues: (a) the basis for judgments of good and bad conduct; (b) the good life; or (c) the obligations of the citizen.

Formatting instructions and deductions • Name, student ID, class hour single spaced in the header • 1 inch margins on all sides • Page numbers in the header • Text of the essay double spaced • 12 point, standard font 10 point deduction for each violation of the above Grammar deductions 1 point for each grammatical error Word count 10 point deduction for word count violation Quotations 10 point deduction per quote exceeding ten words.

I prefer that you not quote at all but put the text into your own words. If you do quote be sure to cite the quote in the manner appropriate to your discipline. If you don't have a discipline yet, select a citation style of your choice (APA, MLA, Turabian, Chicago). Footnotes, endnotes, or a works cited page (if you include one) do not apply to your word count. The word count only applies to the essay itself.

Paper For Above instruction

The comparison of philosophical perspectives concerning the basis for judgments of good and bad conduct, the nature of the good life, or the obligations of citizens reveals fundamental differences rooted in the distinct cultural and ethical frameworks of Western and Eastern thought. This essay will focus on contrasting Plato’s conception of justice and virtue, as expressed in the "Euthyphro" and "Crito," with Lao Tzu’s Taoist perspective expressed in “Living as Water.” Both authors grapple with ethical conduct and human obligation but arrive at markedly different conclusions, influenced heavily by their cultural contexts and philosophical doctrines.

Plato’s "Euthyphro" and "Crito" exemplify the emphasis on rationality, justice, and social harmony within the framework of Greek philosophy. In "Euthyphro," Socrates challenges Euthyphro’s definition of piety, probing whether something is pious because the gods love it, or if the gods love it because it is pious. This dialectic underscores a critical inquiry into the nature of goodness and the grounds on which moral judgments are made. Plato’s underpinning assumption is that moral truths exist independently of human opinions or divine whims and are discoverable through reason. The "Crito," on the other hand, underscores the importance of adherence to justice and social contracts. Socrates refuses Crito’s plea to escape, arguing that injustice is never justified, and that honoring the law and societal obligations uphold the harmony and justice essential for a well-ordered city.

In contrast, Lao Tzu’s “Living as Water” advocates for a fluid, non-resistant approach to life and moral conduct. Lao Tzu posits that the essence of virtue is aligning oneself with the natural flow of the universe, akin to water that benefits all without bias or resistance. This perspective emphasizes humility, simplicity, and spontaneity, proposing that genuine virtue arises from effortless adherence to the Tao—the fundamental principle underlying the natural order. Lao Tzu’s view dismisses the need for rigid moral laws or strict adherence to societal conventions, advocating instead for a harmony that emerges from surrendering the ego and embracing the flow of nature.

The differences between these perspectives are profound. Plato’s approach is rooted in the belief in an objective moral order, accessible through rational inquiry, which forms the basis for judgment and social obligation. The philosopher emphasizes virtue as a pursuit of justice that sustains both individual morality and social harmony. Conversely, Lao Tzu’s perspective eschews the search for fixed moral principles and instead promotes an intuitive harmony with nature that guides conduct. This fluid approach is less prescriptive and more about internal alignment than external compliance.

Despite these differences, both traditions recognize the importance of ethical conduct for the individual's well-being and societal harmony. Plato’s reasoned pursuit of justice aims to cultivate the soul and ensure the stability of the polis. Lao Tzu’s emphasis on harmony with the Tao encourages a spontaneous, effortless form of virtue that sustains natural order. The question of obligations, for Plato, involves adherence to reasoned laws and justice, whereas Lao Tzu advocates for an inward, natural obedience to the flow of life itself.

Ultimately, these contrasting visions reflect divergent philosophical paradigms: rationalism and formal justice versus intuitive harmony and naturalness. Both offer valuable insights into human conduct, emphasizing that the foundation and fulfillment of the good life might be sought either through rational inquiry or harmonious alignment with nature, depending on one’s cultural lens and philosophical inclinations.

References

• Plato. (n.d.). Euthyphro. In Plato’s Works.
• Plato. (n.d.). Crito. In Plato’s Works.
• Lao Tzu. (1997). Tao Te Ching (J. H. McDonald, Trans.). Shambhala Publications.
• Annas, J. (1993). The morality of Happiness. Yale University Press.
• Kupperman, J. J. (2000). Classics of moral and political theory. Hackett Publishing.
• Graham, A. C. (1989). Disputers of the Tao. Open Court Publishing.
• Sedley, D. (2004). The Socratic problem. Cambridge University Press.
• Feng, Y. (2008). Lao Tzu’s Taoism and ethical modernity. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 35(4), 565-578.
• Bricke, N. (2010). Justice and coexistence: A comparative analysis of Western and Eastern ethical principles. Asian Philosophy, 20(2), 141-154.
• Reid, T. (1994). The philosophy of Socrates. Clarendon Press.