I need a 5-page direct discourse

Content Type

User Generated

User

VEnxbaFF

Subject

Humanities

Description

For the direct discourse, I want it to be on Plato's arguments in Crito, which I will attach below. The format will also be attached in the "Pro and Con essay format". You get to choose whether you're on the pro or con side.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Crito—49-51 1. Man ought never act unjustly—A, 49a4 2. To repay injustice with injustice is unjust—1, b10 3. To repay injustice with injustice ought not be done—1,2, b10 4. [To do harm is the same thing as doing evil]—A 5. To do evil is unjust—A, c2 6. To repay evil with evil is unjust—5, c4-5 7. To repay evil with evil ought not to be done—1,3,6, c10 8. [Suffering is an evil and or an injustice]—A 9. Suffering does not permit us to do evil or to act unjustly—3,7,8, c11 10. A man must carry out just agreements—A, e5 11. A state to survive requires that laws have force and apply in all cases—A, 50b 3 12. Individual exceptions to the laws mean that the laws do not apply in all cases—F, b5 13. Individual exceptions to the laws undermine and harm the state—11,12, b5 14. Each individual makes an agreement with the state to abide by its judgments—A, c4 15. This agreement is a just mutual transaction with give and take—A, d-e 16. To retaliate against the state is to harm the state—F, 51a 17. To retaliate against the state is to do evil to the state—4,16 18. To do evil to the state even when the state does evil to you ought not to be done— 7,9,17, 51a2 19. Retaliating against the state should not be done—17, 18 20. To seek individual exceptions to the law should not be done—4,13,18 21. To not abide by the judgments of the state is to break a just agreement—14-15 22. Man ought not fail to abide by the judgments of the state—14, 15, 21 23. Man has an obligation to abide by the judgments of the state and not to seek individual exceptions to the law—20-22 Crito 47-48 1. One ought only respect some opinions and not all—A,47a 2. The opinions of the wise should be followed and those of the fools ignored—F, 47a7 3. The athletic trainer’s opinion is wise since it is based upon knowledge—F, 47 b17 4. An athlete who does not listen to a trainer’s opinion about athletics is acting wrongly—1-3, 47c 1-3 5. [There is an ergon/techne/arête/agathos relation that applies universally and constitutes justice]—A 6. The person who has arête is like the trainer: one of the few whose opinions only ought to be listened to about his techne—4,5, 47c 10 7. Justice yields psuche happiness and injustice yields psuche unhappiness—A, 47d 5 8. The person who listens to the opinions of the arête practitioner is acting in accord with justice those who listen to the opinions of the ignorant hoi polloi are unjust— 5, 47 d5-e8 9. The person who listens to the voice of the arête practitioner will be happy and those who listen to the hoi polloi will be unhappy—7,8, 47d 4-5 10. The unhappy life is not worth living—A, 47 d5 11. One should listen to the voice of arête and not to the hoi polloi—6, 9, 10, 48a7 The “Pro” and “Con” Essay Format Pro Essay (5 pages) Pro Introduction: The author (fill in) argues for the following controversial conclusion: (give conclusion). He supports this premise with the following premises: (a) (give first premise) and (b) (give second premise). This essay will examine each premise in the light of objectors and then defend the author from these objections. The possible objection to the first premise (give the objection(s)). Reply to the first objection (give pointed reply). The possible objection to the second premise (give the objection(s)). Reply to the second objection (give pointed reply). Theoretical observation (this is a broad theoretical groundwork upon which the whole argument rests) Significance (this is a concrete example from the world in which these issues play out today). Con Essay (5 pages) Con Introduction: The author (fill in) argues for the following controversial conclusion (give conclusion). He bases his argument on two objectionable premises: (a) (give first premise) and (b) (give second premise). It will be the contention of this essay that these premises are mistaken thus rendering the conclusion unproven. Objection to the first premise (give objection). Counter-refutation by the author (imagine how the author would respond to your objection) Counter-refutation against the author (show how the author’s response is inadequate) Objection to the second premise (give objection). Counter-refutation by the author (imagine how the author would respond to your objection) Counter-refutation against the author (show how the author’s response is inadequate) Theoretical observation (this is a broad theoretical groundwork upon which the whole argument rests) Significance (this is a concrete example from the world in which these issues play out today).
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tags: philosophy direct discourse philosohphy