A Just Life Leads To A Prosperous Life †Philosophy Essay

A Just Life Leads To A Prosperous Life – Philosophy Essay Free Online Research Papers A Just Life Leads To A Prosperous Life Philosophy Essay Plato’s view on leading a just life – as asserted through Socrates in Republic – lends one to suggest that being just leads to a life of happiness. I will attempt to show that leading a just life can be rewarding to someone who chooses to follow it. In the Republic, Socrates is engaged in a spirited debate with Thrasymachus in which at one point the two men argue whether or not leading a just life would have an advantage over an unjust life. Thrasymachus maintains (using an analogy) that â€Å"†¦when a partnership is wound up, you will never find that the more honest of two partners comes off with the larger share† . Through cross-examination, Socrates concludes – based on the answers of Thrasymachus – that the problems that occur when injustice occurs – ignorance, lack of cooperation between others, etc. – culminates into an unsuccessful life where nothing can be achieved. The claim in which leading a just life carries more rewards than leading an unjust life is true in the sense that what is achieved by leading a just life – knowledge, cooperation and happiness – far outweighs the product of leading an unjust life. Therefore, I find Thrasymachus flawed in his view on justice and injustice in regards to his argument that those leading just lives do not lead rewarding lives because his argument is based on a ‘worst case scenario’. I find his line of reasoning narrow because his argument fails to acknowledge the fact that a just life is also capable of being a happy life. He also fails to acknowledge the fact that leading an unjust life could also potentially lead to an unhappy life. Take for example, a successful businessman practicing shady business tactics. He does so to achieve a high status within the business community but gets caught in this unjust act, loosing all the acclaim and honour he had, while his happy life going south. This goes contrary to what Thrasymachus believes the just man is worse off than those who practice injustice , where being unjust in this case does not necessarily lead to happiness. This situation is plausible today in such a wired society such as ours in which many transactions are tracked and human error in covering up the breaking of business regulations is probable. Socrates later goes on to say in his discussion with Thrasymacus that the function of the soul – which is living a happy life – is dependant on whether the virtue of justice is present . This is true in the case that being just in discerning what is right or wrong is reliant on whether or not society will punish you if caught. Those who are just – according to Socrates – possess high intelligence and character ; essential elements for leading a just life. It is easier to view injustice and justice as two branching paths: the path of justice is the harder path to take while the path of injustice is the easier, high-risk path. To put this into perspective, we could use an example to prove this in the form of a typical student project situation involving the path of justice and the path of injustice. If you took the path of injustice and chose to ride the coat tails of your peers in a school project, you could do nothing to contribute to the project while achieving a high mark than researching, collaborating and contributing ideas with your peers in order to achieve a high mark. However, if you took the path of justice, you would be a willing contributor to the group, assisting in research and throwing in ideas in order to help your team mates. If you helped your teammates, it would display the character you possess to your peers and shows the intelligence you have in being able to contribute ideas to the final product, therefore leading a just path. On the opposite ends of the spectrum, failing to contribute can lead to your peers seeing how despicable you are and causing a break down in group chemistry, showing the people you work with how horrible of a team member you are and ultimately you could be reported as a faulty member of the group to the professor and be given a fail. In this case, the path of least resistance does not pay off as opposed to working hard and contributing. One of the most common rebuttals that have been tossed around in response to Plato’s works is in the form of an example. A man who is at his wits ends, poor and unable to support himself through legal means. He is then forced to stealing food in order to support himself and his family, committing an injustice while being happy and content with his action. I find this example flawed, as it does not address certain issues. One must ask how he ended up in such a dire state. In many cases, it is the government’s role to reach out to every citizen’s needs – as many politicians claim – and succeed in doing so. However, this is not something that is done in many cases, and therefore an injustice has been committed by the government in being unable to fulfill their obligations in assisting the people that they are expected or pressured by citizens to help. Therefore, it is in my opinion that stealing in order to extend one’s lifespan and others he or she is responsible for is justified in this case due to the fact that the elected authority has failed to service this person. Maintaining a sense of justice serves as a cog in the soul’s primary function of leading a happy life. Despite the fact that the path of justice is harder than following the path of injustice, the payoff and self-gratification one can get from the riches of a just life outweigh the massive risks one takes in taking a path of injustice. Bibliography: Plato, Republic, A. Johnson, A. Reath, Ethics Selections from Classical and Contemporary Writers, (Thomson Wadsworth), 2004 Research Papers on A Just Life Leads To A Prosperous Life - Philosophy EssayComparison: Letter from Birmingham and CritoCapital PunishmentLifes What Ifs19 Century Society: A Deeply Divided EraUnreasonable Searches and SeizuresThe Relationship Between Delinquency and Drug UseAnalysis Of A Cosmetics AdvertisementRelationship between Media Coverage and Social andArguments for Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS)Bionic Assembly System: A New Concept of Self

How Conservative Hollywood Became a Liberal Town

How Conservative Hollywood Became a Liberal Town While it may seem as though Hollywood has always been liberal, it hasn’t. Very few people today realize that at one point in the development of American cinema, conservatives ruled the movie-making industry. Santa Monica College Professor Larry Ceplair, co-author of The Inquisition in Hollywood, wrote that during the ‘20s and ‘30s, most studio heads were conservative Republicans who spent millions of dollars to block union and guild organizing. Likewise, the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, the Moving Picture Machine Operators, and the Screen Actors Guild were all headed by conservatives, as well. Scandals and Censorship In the early 1920s, a series of scandals rocked Hollywood. According to authors Kristin Thompson and David Bordwell, silent film star Mary Pickford divorced her first husband in 1921 so that she could marry the attractive Douglas Fairbanks. Later that year, Roscoe â€Å"Fatty† Arbuckle was accused (but later acquitted) of raping and murdering a young actress during a wild party. In 1922, after director William Desmond Taylor was found murdered, the public learned of his lurid love affairs with some of Hollywood’s best-known actresses. The final straw came in 1923, when Wallace Reid, a ruggedly handsome actor, died of a morphine overdose. In themselves, these incidents were a cause for sensation but taken together, studio bosses worried they would be accused of promoting immorality and self-indulgence. As it was, a number of protest groups had successfully lobbied Washington and the federal government was looking to impose censorship guidelines on the studios. Rather than losing control of their product and face the involvement of the government, the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of American (MPPDA) hired Warren Harding’s Republican postmaster general, Will Hays, to address the problem. The Hays Code In their book, Thompson and Bordwell say Hays appealed to the studios to remove objectionable content from their films and in 1927, he gave them a list of material to avoid, called the â€Å"Don’ts and Be Carefuls† list. It covered most sexual immorality and the depiction of criminal activity. Nevertheless, by the early 1930s, many of the items on Hays’ list were being ignored and with Democrats controlling Washington, it seemed more likely than ever that a censorship law would be implemented. In 1933, Hays pushed the film industry to adopt the Production Code, which explicitly forbids depictions of crime methodology, sexual perversion. Films that abide by the code received a seal of approval. Although the â€Å"Hays Code,† as it came to be known helped the industry avoid stiffer censorship at the national level, it began to erode in the late 40s and early ‘50s. The House Un-American Activities Committee Although it was not considered un-American to sympathize with the Soviets during the 1930s or during World War II, when they were American allies, it was considered un-American when the war was over. In 1947, Hollywood intellectuals who had been sympathetic to the communist cause during those early years found themselves being investigated by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and questioned about their â€Å"communist activities.† Ceplair points out that the conservative Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals provided the committee with names of so-called subversives. Members of the alliance testified before the committee as friendly† witnesses. Other â€Å"friendlies,† such as Jack Warner of Warner Bros. and actors Gary Cooper, Ronald Reagan, and Robert Taylor either fingered others as â€Å"communists† or expressed concern over liberal content in their scripts. After a four-year suspension of the committee ended in 1952, former communists and Soviet sympathizers such as actors Sterling Hayden and Edward G. Robinson kept themselves out of trouble by naming others. Most of the people named were script-writers. Ten of them, who testified as â€Å"unfriendly† witnesses became known as the â€Å"Hollywood Ten† and were blacklisted – effectively ending their careers. Ceplair notes that following the hearings, guilds, and unions purged liberals, radicals, and leftists from their ranks, and over the next 10 years, the outrage slowly began to dissipate. Liberalism Seeps Into Hollywood Due in part to a backlash against abuses perpetrated by the House Un-American Activities Committee, and in part to a landmark Supreme Court ruling in 1952 declaring films to be a form of free speech, Hollywood began to slowly liberalize. By 1962, the Production Code was virtually toothless. The newly formed Motion Picture Association of America implemented a rating system, which still stands today. In 1969, following the release of  Easy Rider, directed by liberal-turned-conservative  Dennis Hopper, counter-culture films began to appear in significant numbers. By the mid-1970s, older directors were retiring, and a new generation of filmmakers was emerging. By the late 1970s, Hollywood was very openly and specifically liberal. After making his last film in 1965, Hollywood director John Ford saw the writing on the wall. â€Å"Hollywood now is run by Wall St. and Madison Ave., who demand ‘Sex and Violence,’† author Tag Gallagher quotes him as writing in his  book,  Ã¢â‚¬Å"This is against my conscience and religion.† Hollywood Today Things are not much different today. In a 1992 letter to the  New York Times, screenwriter and playwright  Jonathan R. Reynolds  lament  that â€Å"†¦ Hollywood today is as fascistic toward conservatives as the 1940s and 50s were  liberals †¦ And that goes for the movies and television shows produced.† It goes beyond Hollywood, too, Reynolds argues. Even the New York theater community is rampant with liberalism. â€Å"Any play that suggests that racism is a two-way street or that socialism is degrading simply wont be produced,† Reynolds writes. â€Å"I defy you to name any plays produced in the last 10 years that intelligently espouse conservative ideas. Make that 20 years.† The lesson Hollywood still has not learned, he says, is that repression of ideas, regardless of political persuasion, â€Å"should not be rampant in the arts.† The enemy is repression itself.