You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
chose one argument and write about it
Pages 4 (1004 words)
Name Tutor Course Date Argument Two Introduction In the Argument, Thrasymuchs postulates that justice is dependent on laws and laws are made by that in power, whether by public majority in a democracy or the rich in Oligarchy under the claim that they are in the people’s best interests (Arp).
The second premise is that leaders are irrevocably oppressive since even when they make mistakes in judgment that would be seen to have the opposite effect of advantaging the weak; they are not technically leaders since as a craftsman a leader is infallible therefore when they err they are not actually leaders. He therefore contends that as the case is in all cities, it is considered just to obey the rules, retrospectively made by the strong to be followed by the weak and this is ultimately advantageous to the law’s authors. It is at this point that most proponents’ arguments will depart and the focus of this essay will be to critically consider their arguments cross-referencing them against Thrasymuchs initial argument and use objections to them to prove it was erroneous. First Proponent’s Arguments; Leaders Universally Make Oppressive Rules On the surface, proponents may postulate 2 arguments, in defense of the first premise by Thrasymuchs, (a) they will claim that leaders in society are in charge of making rules and as such they will be likely to use their power to make only rules that benefit them and this will translate into oppressing the weak for their own sakes (b). ...
Not exactly what you need?