Assignment First

澳洲音乐学论文代写:整体的含义

但是,可以看出他對他的主張有一個明顯的誤解。由於他認為統治者只是通過受益統治者而採取行動,可以認為統治者只是為了他們自己的利益而提供行為。如果標準化司法最終有利於統治者,這是具體的。事實上,Thrasymachus認為統治者正在思考自己的利益正在提供不公正的行為(Copi et al。,2016)。秘密在於了解整體觀點。可以有一個具體的原因,他用“更強”來描述比較的整體含義,而不是考慮強的絕對術語。只有採取行動才能使弱勢群體受益,而不是弱勢群體受益。簡而言之,正義總是關乎從屬的個人利益與擁有更高權力的他人利益。因此,當統治者受益於統治者的行動時,他們傾向於提供正義行為(Barney,2006)。但是,統治者似乎並不把自己的利益與其他人的利益聯繫在一起。

澳洲音乐学论文代写:整体的含义
因此,他們傾向於採取不公正的行動。如果統治者不得不根據被統治者的利益而採取行動,他們的利益就應該服從於被統治者的利益。實際上,這將使定位權力得到裁決。因此,他們不能被歸類為真正的統治者。因此,在沒有不正當行為的情況下,個人不能成功地行使統治者的藝術。 Thrasymachus堅信只有一個愚蠢的人會犧牲他們的個人利益來感知他人的興趣。因此,可以得出結論,Thrasymachus表示明顯拒絕正義,認為它是失敗者的騙局。關於對話者的描述,與對過去的對話者的暗示性承諾(Sparshott,1966)相比,提供了更明確的擁抱。被譴責的Thrasymachus反道德主義反映了一個含蓄的譴責的第一個對話者。由於無害和可愛的表示,這可能看起來不合情理。與其他案例相比,這進一步反映了激進的反蘇格拉底主義。

澳洲音乐学论文代写:整体的含义

However, a clear misunderstanding of his claim can be seen. As he thought that the ruled delivered just actions by benefitting rulers, it can be thought that the rulers deliver just acts for their own benefits. This is specific if the standardized justice ends up benefitting the rulers. As a matter of fact, Thrasymachus held the notion that rulers who are thinking about their own benefits are delivering unjust acts (Copi et al., 2016). The secret lies to understand the overall view. There can be a specific reason for which he has described the overall meaning in terms of comparison by using “stronger” instead of considering absolute terminology that is the strong. Delivering just actions is crucial for benefitting the stronger ones than the weaker ones. In simple terms, justice is always in regards to subordinate personal interests with someone else’s interests who have a higher authority. Hence, when actions are delivered by the ruled for benefitting the rulers, they tend to deliver just action (Barney, 2006). However, the rulers do not appear to subordinate their own interests with someone else’s interests.

澳洲音乐学论文代写:整体的含义
As a result, they tend to delivery unjust actions. If rulers had to deliver actions as per the interests of ruled, their interests should have been subordinated to the ruled. In effect, this would place the ruled for positioning authority. Therefore, they cannot be categorized as genuine rulers. Hence, an individual cannot be successful in exercising rulership art genuinely in the absence of unjust behaviour by ipso facto. Thrasymachus held the belief that only a foolish person will be sacrificing their personal interests to perceive interest of others. Hence, it can be concluded that Thrasymachus expresses a clear rejection of justice considering it to be a con game for losers. There has been a description of interlocutors to deliver a more explicit embracement in comparison with implicit commitment towards the past interlocutor (Sparshott, 1966). The condemned anti- moralism of Thrasymachus reflects an implicitly condemned first interlocutor. This can appear implausible due to the harmless and likable representation. This further reflects the radical anti- Socratic in comparison with other cases.