The Affirmative Side Of The Disputation

The first disputation had a very interesting topic to start with. The proclamation that the disputation was based on was; be it resolved that all lawmakers should be educated in philosophy. It caused the debaters of both sides to defend whether or not philosophy is needed in order to be a just, and fair lawmaker. This also allowed for the class to decide for themselves, with some important information, whether or not they agree with the proclamation for this disputation.
The first thing to focus on with this disputation is which works were used I order to make the arguments for both the affirmative and negative side. This disputation focused on three pieces written by Plato. The first, which was only used by the affirmative side, was The Republic,
Although I was on the negative side of this disputation it is important for me to discuss the affirmative’s arguments first for understanding and secondly for reflection. The affirmative side made three different points in favour of the disputation’s proclamation.
The first argument that was presented by the affirmative side was that lawmakers should know right from wrong since they are trusted to make the right decision. The argument was that philosophy focuses on looking at what is right and wrong and what is moral. By being trained in philosophy the affirmative side disputes that lawmakers will be more moral, fair, and just.
The second point was that without philosophy how does one know what justice truly is. This point is due to the fact that philosophers constantly question themselves over what is justice. By having an education in philosophy it allows the lawmakers to have many different options on what is justice as well as being able to challenge their previous views on justice and re-evaluate on these views when
Around 70e the dialogue starts with Socrates discussing with his close friends about suicide e and his evidential demise. At this point in the book Socrates mentions the argument of opposites. The argument of opposites is a theory that what you are in this life is the opposite of what you will be in the next life. It could even be argued that what you are currently in this life is the opposite of what you will be in the future. Therefore a man who is evil and malicious in this life will be comparative to a saint in his future or even in his next life. With this theory in mind, a lawmaker who has been trained in philosophy and knows Socrates’ argument of opposites may be less likely to serve a harsh punishment to the person who committed the crime. This is due to the fact that they may feel like it is not right to punish someone for a crime that they committed now since they may be a good person in the future if they are allowed to walk away with a light punishment. This is one argument that could be used to show how detrimental the study of philosophy could be for someone who wishes to be a