Question

What conclusion do Callicles and Socrates come to on the definition of the good?

Answer 1

Note: This response is in UK English, please paste the response to MS Word and you should be able to spot discrepancies easily. You may elaborate the answer based on personal views or your classwork if necessary.

(Answer) Callicles and Socrates argue over what is termed as “good” or “just.” In the argument, Callicles claims that what is good or just is natural and determined by natural forces. This means that one would have to exert less to acquire justice as it would naturally flow. However, Socrates proposed that if the natural order was the epitome of justice and good, then a strong slave would naturally overcome his master who is of a smaller physical structure.

Callicles is defeated by this argument and agrees that justice and goodness is a matter of wisdom. This wise stance would depend on fighting for equality for all individuals, which are rich and poor alike. Therefore, both Socrates and Callicles conclude that “good” doesn’t occur naturally but needs to be imparted. In most cases, acquiring something good would mean working against certain naturally occurring forces.

Furthermore, they both seem to speak around the theory that simply admitting that some things are “good” or “bad” would imply adding a workable value or standard that is separate from the quantity of satisfaction or dissatisfaction that is actually acquired.