In the Allegory of the Cave, Plato presents an idea of philosophy as a realm of truth, which is distinguished from the world of shadows in the âcaveâ of our everyday world. Using the knowledge you have gained about philosophy so far in this course, I want you to evaluate this image of philosophy provided by Plato. Your task will be twofold.
You must:
1) explain in your own words what the Allegory of the Cave is all about. In this part of your paper, you must explain the philosophical message of this passage, and show that you understand what Plato is doing with it.
2) say whether you think this is a persuasive view of what philosophy is, based on your experience in this course. You are encouraged to use the course material, as presented in the textbook, to illustrate your position. You are free to tackle this question in any way you wish, and to be as creative as you want to be in answering it. This task is designed to give you an opportunity to show you understand the course material, and that you can use it in developing your own position or point of view on an issue.
Sample Solution
violations of rights rather than to pursue intervention with force, so as to not fear the breach of any sovereignty that could lead to the greater consequences or retaliation. It is expected that states would act inconsistently as responses to mass atrocities would range accordingly due to the differing magnitude of the conflict and capabilities of states to tackle them. Walzer (1977) asserts that it is justified to infringe upon a stateâs sovereignty through intervention when the âfitâ, that is the social contract between citizens and the government, is broken due to the rise of ânational liberationâ movements directed against the state. Such rebellions determine that the âfitâ is thus broken and the government cannot claim legitimacy. He also argues that sovereignty may be overridden and intervention is only morally justified for humanitarian reasons which includes the protection of human rights against extreme abuses such as genocide or other âcrimes against humanityâ. In other circumstances, intervention is thus morally prohibited due to the notion that intervention is tantamount to the double violation of rights, namely the rights of the people to self-determination and the rights of the state to sovereignty and territorial integrity. However, such crimes may be overstated and too broad to allow appropriate measures to be taken when considering intervention especially as defining what âcrimes against humanityâ generally entails is subjective to an individual. Nardin and Slater (1986) criticises Walzerâs emphasis on the âfitâ between the government and its citizens citing that human rights abuses may also occur in communities where such âfitâ exists, especially in instances of majority tyranny. On the question of sovereignty, Nardin and Slater (1986) assert that a plausible argument surrounding the justifiability of intervention would imply that sovereignty is dependent on the extent that it promotes and protects the interests of its citizens. Should a state abuse the human rights of its people, it would lose its legitimacy and sovereignty as a consequence. But even if an intervention would be justified, the extent as to whether states commit to it is hindered by the practical constraint of states engaging in military interventions. In response to this, the R2P doctrine insists that states contemplating intervention should exhaust less coercive, more peaceful means before engaging in military intervention. In the case where crises necessitate coercive measures, the intervention ought to >
violations of rights rather than to pursue intervention with force, so as to not fear the breach of any sovereignty that could lead to the greater consequences or retaliation. It is expected that states would act inconsistently as responses to mass atrocities would range accordingly due to the differing magnitude of the conflict and capabilities of states to tackle them. Walzer (1977) asserts that it is justified to infringe upon a stateâs sovereignty through intervention when the âfitâ, that is the social contract between citizens and the government, is broken due to the rise of ânational liberationâ movements directed against the state. Such rebellions determine that the âfitâ is thus broken and the government cannot claim legitimacy. He also argues that sovereignty may be overridden and intervention is only morally justified for humanitarian reasons which includes the protection of human rights against extreme abuses such as genocide or other âcrimes against humanityâ. In other circumstances, intervention is thus morally prohibited due to the notion that intervention is tantamount to the double violation of rights, namely the rights of the people to self-determination and the rights of the state to sovereignty and territorial integrity. However, such crimes may be overstated and too broad to allow appropriate measures to be taken when considering intervention especially as defining what âcrimes against humanityâ generally entails is subjective to an individual. Nardin and Slater (1986) criticises Walzerâs emphasis on the âfitâ between the government and its citizens citing that human rights abuses may also occur in communities where such âfitâ exists, especially in instances of majority tyranny. On the question of sovereignty, Nardin and Slater (1986) assert that a plausible argument surrounding the justifiability of intervention would imply that sovereignty is dependent on the extent that it promotes and protects the interests of its citizens. Should a state abuse the human rights of its people, it would lose its legitimacy and sovereignty as a consequence. But even if an intervention would be justified, the extent as to whether states commit to it is hindered by the practical constraint of states engaging in military interventions. In response to this, the R2P doctrine insists that states contemplating intervention should exhaust less coercive, more peaceful means before engaging in military intervention. In the case where crises necessitate coercive measures, the intervention ought to >
