philosophy questions- please help?

Question

1. Why is it better to be just than unjust, according to Socrates?
2. What does Glaucon try to show with his thought experiments of the ‘ring of Gyges’ and the perfectly just and unjust men?
3. What does Herodotus mean by the claim, “custom is king o’er all?”
4. Explain how morality relates to the categories of ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal,’ according to Benedict.
5. What’s wrong with traditional morality, according to Rand?
6. Why does Mavrodes think morality is “queer” if one does not believe in God?
7. What does the “death of God” mean for morality?
8. What is the most pleasant life according to Epicurus, and why does he say it is most pleasant?
9. Why does Ross say that pleasure is not the only good?
10. What’s the difference between “master morality” and “slave morality,” according to Nietzsche?

Answer 1

I can handle most of these; sorry, perhaps not quite all. When I don't know something exactly, I'm honest enough to admit as much.
1.The term "just" for Socrates was a forerunner of Aristotle's golden mean. He did not refer justice to man-made dictates of "what one must do or not do" set down by a tyrannos or sole ruler claimed inerrable knowledge; he had in mind justice in the sense of according ethically to any other man what he had earned, no more and no less; in this way he hoped a society of men committed to using their own judgments could form a societal group on a basis of mutual respect and honesty, because nothing else would work.
2. I know the reference; but all I know about it is it has to do with the fact that the unjust man violates the moral order of a real world, and that therefore attempts to avoid responsibility for justice as well as pretending in postmodern style that one can "get away with something" by causing others to believe in a lie or to follow a dictated order are both impractical and bound to fail.
3. He was a man who traveled far and wide; and what he observed everywhere was that men were coercing, their citizens exactly as men do in the US and other countries into doing things their way, regardless of whether it was good or not; and he also noted that those in positions of dictatorship liked the status quo that way and that their victims tended to prefer obedience to fighting the "way things had always been".
4. I know little of the man. But morality refers to a theoretical relationship between the adult individual and the physical space-time universe; what's moral is what works in reality, what doesn't work isn't moral. Normal and abonormal for a scientist are relative terms referring to what most men do or refrain from doing; the scientific term would be "normative" and "Subnormative", referring to whether one is doing what one ought to do or not. If Benedict says this he's right; if not, his answers are wrong. morality has nothing to do with religio, any other unverse or failures to define categories correctly.
5. It's normal. and therefore failed; not based on realism, category-level conceptions and therefore sub-normative in content. It is exactly to the demands of any society's dictators that she refers when she rejects demands placed on the individual for duteous behaviors designed to accord with unthought-about norms and not with real human values.
6. If he's a religionist, he has to believe in a much better or much-worse otherworld to which men belong before orafter secular space-time experiences. From the standpoint of a religio (mystic whispered instruction) believer, therefore, secular moral seems 'queer"; just as his does to a secular a-theist who does not believe in his otherworld or his supposed mystical insights.
7. It is the eginning of realistic morality, ethics and individual life in a rational society. The "death of god" refers to the abandoning of the idea of inerrable, infallible, infintely-perfected mystical wisdom as a concept and as a dictator's motive for claiming a godlike position over humans on the basis of his supposed superior wisdom--which is nothing but postmodernist pretension at practicality on earth, which he absolutely lacks.
8. Epicurus was a more profound thinker than most men credit him with being. He did not refer to what pseudo-
ibertarians do which is "doing whatever gives one instantaneous positive feelings"--a gangster's ethics. He referred, if I am correct, to pleasure as Aristoteles did in the sense of moral-ethical "happiness"--as a contexted
understanding of doing neither too much nor to litlle of anything; in the realm of "happiness" or "moral-ethical satisfaction", this took the form of confining oneself to doing that which one had found to produce satisfaction (by one's own judgment) and therefore avoiding doing that which harmed others or the state of which one was a member in the process. He aimed his philosophy against those who had rejected earthly happiness; so the key conception here is that one's emotions were to be those of just and amiable men, the pleasures they felt being therefore those proper to a good man.
9. Ross takes the step of pleasure a step further. He means that that which is pleasant at first is not always the highest good.
For instance, to learn a sport, a discipline. a skill or to coexist with other can mean "going through pain to get a gain". Such profits are longer-term, of a higher sort, or of a more-useful variety than are "instantaneous gratifications" or "indulgent pleasances. It is also possible to gain "pleasure" by investing in others who can enjoy smething, which you believe they deserve but which you provide".
10. Nietzche referred in several places in his writings to "master" and "slave " moralities. Misled by thinking in Platonic conrete-buddhistic terms, he inferred the "philosopher king"--born or trainable "superman"-leader--
set against those who ought to obey such an inspired or "qualified paragon". So, he who began to free the individual from socio-statist postmodernist of a kingly and tyrannical sort ended by arguing an emergency dictator's need to be obeyed during such emergencies could also be required to be applied to men under normative conditions--which misled him into identifying two sorts of morality, "that of infallible leaders" and "that of born obedients", exactly as Machiavelli made the same error ; and as all collectivists have since the beginning of time.

Answer 2

It's the old identity paradox! It's sort of a silly question to answer. It does little more than make you think about something. At some point is not really the same ship anymore. At which point that is, is pretty much arbitrary. In actual application, it's up to some public official or administrator to define "same" or "not the same." On a strong view of identity, it is not the same the moment a change is made. On a really weak view, it's the same one no matter what you do, almost. Generally, we would consider that some essential part(s) of the ship defines the identity of the ship, the hull for instance, and the ship is considered to be the same one as long as that or those original parts are intact.

Answer 3

Well, I'm going to just be short and sweet. I know of questions #1 and #2.

1. The basic thing is: Justice is what's good for the soul, according to Socrates. Now, look into what he says about the soul, and you can tie it all together.

2. The simple answer I have for this is: Man, when not under threat/fear of punishment, is more subject to the vices of life. That is something obvious to us in everyday life. A child wants a cookie from the cookie jar, but their parents say no, yet the child takes a cookie; if the child is not "corrected", no will become meaningless as long as they want what they want and take it when they want it.

Answer 4

Answer to Q. 1
When you're right, you're right. When you're wrong, you're wrong. Socrates couldn't have said it better himself.

Answer to Q. 3
Refers to the impact of the Roman Empire over conquered lands. Herodotus observed that it did not matter to the natives of these conquered lands who their new rulers were or what the new legal religions were or how different their new form of government was. Each conquered culture still managed to distinguish themselves without being fully absorbed by the Romans, by not letting their customs die. These were time-honored customs, family customs, traditional customs, cultural customs, etc.

Answer 5

I bet your professor gave you books to read about these things, so READ them and learn them on your own!

Answer 6

what does custom is the king o er all mean