This debate is worth up to 25 points.
It runs from now until Thursday, October 6


Building Justice with Plato (DEBATE #1)

Throughout the Republic and other readings, several different notions of
justice are expressed.  In the following exercise, each group will be
assigned to argue a competing view of justice as put forth by one of the
following characters in Plato's Republic: Thrasymachus, Cephalus &
Polemarchus, Socrates, and Glaucon. Also, one group will be assigned to
argue Marx's view of justice.  Each team is expected to present
substantive arguments in support of their assigned view and to oppose the
other arguments in the same manner as well.  Furthermore, each team will
seek to determine whether or not the view they are arguing is compatible
with Christian notions of Justice, and in particular, Liberation Theology.
Consider also Tyler's psychological view of justice and how PERCEPTIONS
of justice are consistent with, contradictory to, or overlap with,
Plato or Liberation theology (relative deprivation?).  

Part 1: (Argument) Deadline: 9/29/05
Each team will be assigned a 'view' of justice as put forth by one very
old, dead philosopher.  All members of a group are to research this view
and to argue in favor of it and to oppose the others through supporting
evidence and logical reasoning.  These arguments will, in turn, be
presented on a separate conference on Webboard.  Initially, only the view
of justice that you are arguing will be viewable on Webboard until Part 2
begins.  For a team to get full credit for Part 1 of the exercise, each
team member is expected to post AT LEAST ONCE in support of their assigned
view of justice, (and in opposition to the other views)

Part 2: (Debate) Deadline: 10/6/05  (also worth up to 25 points)

Your team leaders will instruct you on how to proceed and set your
individual team deadlines. The deadline for teams to have team comments
posted for this phase is Thursday, Oct 6.

After all the teams post their arguments on Webboard in their respective
conferences, they will become viewable to all groups for the debate
portion of this exercise.  Each group is then expected to critique a
competing view of justice in a different conference.
For a team to get full credit for Part 2 of the exercise, each team member
is expected to post AT LEAST ONCE in a thread that argues a competing view
of justice.  

Keep in mind that to truly argue a point, you must be able to understand
contrary viewpoints as well.  In other words, don't just simply present
your view without being able to defend it.  It will help to gain a firm
understanding of all of the views of the aforementioned philosophers
beforehand.

Return to JT's homepage