AQA Philosophy A2 June 2013

Original post by glendale123

I think the main criticism is that this views humans in a negative light, not proving that they would behave immorally should they have the opportunity, but merely assuming they'd do so.

Ahhh yes! Thank you - that's a very good point!

Original post by Gillymander95

Erm, just one off the top of my head, you could talk about how Glaucon has a view of justice that supports a consequentialist account - acting unjustly behind other people's backs to maximize your own gain or pleasure, only refraining from so when you are to fall subject to censure or punishment.

This shows injustice to be a virtue. However, you could criticize this view by talking about how Socrates (Plato) sees justice to be a virtue, referencing his tripartite of the soul and charioteer allegory, which lead Socrates to conclude that justice is actually a virtue, not injustice, as justice makes its possessor happy.

A slightly weaker criticism is Socrates' claim that thieves must act in a just manner toward one another to achieve unjust aims. This would mean that justice is virtuous as it leads to them being successful in their aims, thus happy.

Although the above criticism is viable, it is weaker for two reasons:

1.

It doesn't DIRECTLY link to Glaucon, so you'd have to be clever in the exam and create a link.

2.

Socrates is kind of undermining his own argument here. He is claiming justice makes us happy, thus is virtuous. However, the thieves are still being unjust and getting away with it, and they are happy. So really, this argument can be easily flipped in to supporting Glaucon that injustice is a virtue, and we will act wrongly when we can get away with it...

Thank you - isn't Glaucon simply fighting Thrasymachus' point though? :smile:

Reply 363

username987102

13

Original post by cmargerison

Ahhh yes! Thank you - that's a very good point!

Thank you - isn't Glaucon simply fighting Thrasymachus' point though? :smile:

I wouldn't think say since Thrasymachus said injustice is virtuous

Reply 364

kkkassikassi

Original post by InsaneMosaic

Just wondering what people are predicting for Mill questions. I compiled the past paper questions and it seems obvious that they recycle a lot of them, substituting them in and out as a) and b) questions.
2010:

•

A) Outline and illustrate Mill’s case for regarding democracy with suspicion.

•

B) ‘There is no place for censorship in a free society as individuals must decide for themselves.’ Examine the adequacy of Mill’s arguments in support of freedom of expression.

•

B) Assess whether Mill’s Harm Principle is a successful device for achieving its purpose.

2011:

•

A) Explain Mill’s Harm Principle and outline any three of his applications of that principle.

•

B) ‘Mill’s account of personal liberty ensures the development of the individual and society.’ Assess the validity of this claim.

•

B) To what extent, if any, was Mill right to highlight dangers inherent in democracy?

2012:

•

A) Explain and illustrate Mill’s reasons for suggesting there are dangers inherent in democratic government.

•

B) Assess whether Mill succeeds in establishing the limit of state interference in the actions of the individual.

•

B) ‘Mill overestimated the importance of freedom of thought and discussion to a free society’ Assess the validity of this claim.

I seriously hope for a Harm Principle centred b) question but seeing as it came up last year it seems less probable. Freedom of thought and expression would also be fine for me (with some quick revision) however the 2011 ones seem rather troubling. I could foresee an Applications-based b)?

nooo i'd hate an applications based b)! i really want a harm principle one but i doubt it'll come up, it'll maybe be the a) if anything. i'm okay with questions about individual or society development, and democracy is probably my weakest area, but i still know enough to answer the question. i just hope they don't throw something completely unexpected in...

Reply 365

Original post by InsaneMosaic

Just wondering what people are predicting for Mill questions. I compiled the past paper questions and it seems obvious that they recycle a lot of them, substituting them in and out as a) and b) questions.
2010:

•

A) Outline and illustrate Mill’s case for regarding democracy with suspicion.

•

B) ‘There is no place for censorship in a free society as individuals must decide for themselves.’ Examine the adequacy of Mill’s arguments in support of freedom of expression.

•

B) Assess whether Mill’s Harm Principle is a successful device for achieving its purpose.

2011:

•

A) Explain Mill’s Harm Principle and outline any three of his applications of that principle.

•

B) ‘Mill’s account of personal liberty ensures the development of the individual and society.’ Assess the validity of this claim.

•

B) To what extent, if any, was Mill right to highlight dangers inherent in democracy?

2012:

•

A) Explain and illustrate Mill’s reasons for suggesting there are dangers inherent in democratic government.

•

B) Assess whether Mill succeeds in establishing the limit of state interference in the actions of the individual.

•

B) ‘Mill overestimated the importance of freedom of thought and discussion to a free society’ Assess the validity of this claim.

I seriously hope for a Harm Principle centred b) question but seeing as it came up last year it seems less probable. Freedom of thought and expression would also be fine for me (with some quick revision) however the 2011 ones seem rather troubling. I could foresee an Applications-based b)?

Apparently the Mill questions for Section B basically have to come under three headings: the harm principle, freedom of expression and individual development, and democracy and 'tyranny of the majority', but obviously the phrasing and emphasis can differ from year to year...A question on the harm principle would be great though!

Reply 366

Original post by bobbieare

I wouldn't think say since Thrasymachus said injustice is virtuous

And Glaucon is focussing on the fact that injustice pays better? (The definitions of justice is my weak point, sorry!)

Reply 367

Gillymander95

OP

3

Original post by cmargerison

Ahhh yes! Thank you - that's a very good point!

Thank you - isn't Glaucon simply fighting Thrasymachus' point though? :smile:

No, not really...if anything, he's agreeing with Thraysmachus in claiming "injustice is a virtue". The only difference is that Thraysmachus' argument is political, seeing justice to lie in the interests of the strong (the rulers), whereas Glaucon is arguing that justice lies in the interests of society, but is a cost to the individual - they both advocate acting unjustly if you can get away with it.

Reply 368

Original post by Gillymander95

No, not really...if anything, he's agreeing with Thraysmachus in claiming "injustice is a virtue". The only difference is that Thraysmachus' argument is political, seeing justice to lie in the interests of the strong (the rulers), whereas Glaucon is arguing that justice lies in the interests of society, but is a cost to the individual - they both advocate acting unjustly if you can get away with it.

Ahh okay, I see! Thank you. :biggrin:

Reply 369

username987102

13

Original post by cmargerison

And Glaucon is focussing on the fact that injustice pays better? (The definitions of justice is my weak point, sorry!)

Yeah, he's basically saying people are just out of fear, it gains value from reputation and social rewards only, no one is just for the sake of being just, if they could get away with acting unjust, they would hence the ring of gyges example

Reply 370

username987102

13

Original post by Gillymander95

No, not really...if anything, he's agreeing with Thraysmachus in claiming "injustice is a virtue". The only difference is that Thraysmachus' argument is political, seeing justice to lie in the interests of the strong (the rulers), whereas Glaucon is arguing that justice lies in the interests of society, but is a cost to the individual - they both advocate acting unjustly if you can get away with it.

Is Glaucon advocating acting unjust? I'm sure he was just saying people don't act moral for it's own sake but he still said people should be moral

Reply 371

Original post by bobbieare

Yeah, he's basically saying people are just out of fear, it gains value from reputation and social rewards only, no one is just for the sake of being just, if they could get away with acting unjust, they would hence the ring of gyges example

Original post by bobbieare

Is Glaucon advocating acting unjust? I'm sure he was just saying people don't act moral for it's own sake but he still said people should be moral

I went to see my teacher and this is what he told me:
Thrasymachus' view in simple terms is that there is no such thing as 'justice', it is employed by the rulers to control and is always in the interest of the stronger. The effects of justice are bad.
Glaucon disagrees with Thrasymachus but presents T's argument in the strongest way so that Socrates can sucessfully refute it - he claims T's argument is sounding more sensical than Socrates'. His view is that justice is simply a compromise - a social contract. Ring of Gyges illustrates that a person would act unjust if there was no social contract or punishment stopping them. The effects of justice are good/useful but justice only exists as a social contract.
Socrates believes justice is an objective truth; it is good in and of itself and for it's effects - he believe the effects of it are good and useful, unlike Thrasymachus.

I hope that makes sense!

Reply 372

Gillymander95

OP

3

Original post by bobbieare

Is Glaucon advocating acting unjust? I'm sure he was just saying people don't act moral for it's own sake but he still said people should be moral

No, he is advocating injustice. It'd be so nice for Glaucon to turn around and go "Wag1 lets all be of genuine just nature, and get along. Let's all be moral. Somebody pass me the weed. :redface:

**** the police. " Alas no, he is far more crude than that...

In Book 2 of the Republic, he contrasts two extreme examples of the just and unjust man:

The just man is thoroughly just but has an undeserved reputation for injustice
The unjust man is thoroughly unjust but is perceived by society to be just

•

The just man will be scoured, racked and bound, alongside having his eyes burnt out. After suffering every kind of evil, he will be impaled. Only then will he learn not to be just, but only to APPEAR just, whilst acting unjustly behind everyone's back.

•

The unjust man will flourish from every social and material advantage. From his unjust gains, he will be able to benefit his friends, harm his enemies, afford sacrifices and dedicate gifts to the gods, which will make him dearer to the Gods than other men (which will grant him access into Heaven, but this bit in brackets is Adimantus' argument, not Glaucon's)

These examples show injustice to be a virtue, and Glaucon is advocating injustice by claiming life is better for the unjust than the just.

He also references injustice being a virtue in explaining the "Origins of Justice", claiming justice is placed in the third category of Good - 'Goods that are disagreeable in themselves, but considered to be Good solely for the consequences they bring'. Glaucon here is claiming that we wish to inflict pain on others (unjust, thus showing injustice is a good in itself), but we refrain from doing so (refraining is just, but is disagreeable as a good in itself as we wish to inflict pain on others). The only reason we refrain from doing so is because the consequence is that pain will not be inflicted on us (so the good of refraining is disagreeable, but is welcomed on the consensus that we don't receive pain). He goes on to advocate that we should act unjustly when we won't get caught.

Glaucon is quite successful in advocating injustice as a virtue as it coincides with consequentialist/hedonistic systems. Furthermore, after ****ting on all of Socrates' arguments, I always imagine him celebrating a little something like this:

EDIT: GLAUCON IS NOT AGREEING WITH THRASYMACHUS, BY THE WAY! ALTHOUGH ARGUING INJUSTICE IS A VIRTUE, HE IS CLAIMING THAT AS INDIVIDUALS WE DRAW UP A SOCIAL CONTRACT WHICH MEANS WE ACT JUSTLY TOWARDS ONE ANOTHER. HOWEVER, THIS JUSTICE IS NOT GENUINE - IT IS JUST TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM HARM (see my commentary above on "Origins of Justice").

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 373

ItsJustMeAgain.x

9

How would they ask a part B on applications? (Mill) Surely there's no real debate aside criticising the examples themselves?

Reply 374

Original post by ItsJustMeAgain.x

How would they ask a part B on applications? (Mill) Surely there's no real debate aside criticising the examples themselves?

That's a good point! I don't think they could, could they? :confused:

I was told that the Part B essays can basically be on of three things: the harm principle, freedom of expression, and/or democracy and tyranny of the majority. An applications one would definitely throw me!

Reply 375

ItsJustMeAgain.x

9

Original post by Lingo-Flamingo

That's a good point! I don't think they could, could they? :confused:

I was told that the Part B essays can basically be on of three things: the harm principle, freedom of expression, and/or democracy and tyranny of the majority. An applications one would definitely throw me!

I was told 4 things for Part B; the harm principle, freedom of expression, development of the individual and democracy. However I'm not sure if these were guesses made on what has already come up or whether they are actually the only things that can come up- Applications hasn't come up before as a part B so if it is possible then it's be likely to be this year?

Reply 376

InsaneMosaic

Original post by ItsJustMeAgain.x

How would they ask a part B on applications? (Mill) Surely there's no real debate aside criticising the examples themselves?

I could imagine something like 'How consistent are Mill's applications with his principles?' kinda thing. But yes, perhaps you're right. I was just trying to think what else they could possibly ask, and since I saw applications as an a), was exploring it.

Reply 377

ItsJustMeAgain.x

9

Original post by InsaneMosaic

I could imagine something like 'How consistent are Mill's applications with his principles?' kinda thing. But yes, perhaps you're right. I was just trying to think what else they could possibly ask, and since I saw applications as an a), was exploring it.

It's possible, I had a look on the AQA specification and it said:
Essay questions will focus on the following problem areas:
• freedom of the individual
• individual development
• democracy.

But that still seems sort of vague to me, if they can ask something specifically on the harm principle then why not applications too?

Reply 378

Original post by ItsJustMeAgain.x

I was told 4 things for Part B; the harm principle, freedom of expression, development of the individual and democracy. However I'm not sure if these were guesses made on what has already come up or whether they are actually the only things that can come up- Applications hasn't come up before as a part B so if it is possible then it's be likely to be this year?

Oh yeah, sorry! My teacher grouped freedom of expression and development of the individual together, but I guess they could be separate topics! I was told those were the only things it could be on, essay-wise, but I think there's a wider scope for Section A...don't hold me to that though! :tongue:

Original post by InsaneMosaic

I could imagine something like 'How consistent are Mill's applications with his principles?' kinda thing. But yes, perhaps you're right. I was just trying to think what else they could possibly ask, and since I saw applications as an a), was exploring it.

Fair enough! :smile:

At least there's a choice for Section B, eh? I think I'd struggle with an applications question!

Reply 379