In the case where John and Debra picked up a painting so as to deliver it to a buyer, Socrates and Glaucon would have reacted as follows:
In the mind of Socrates, he would have asked himself the following questions before he made further deliberations on the matter. What was the cause of the accident by John? Was it accidental? What factors preceded the accident? How did John react to the factor that had finally culminated to a breakage and distortion of the painting? Did his accomplice Debra, take reasonable care or reaction by taking the matter at hand in the hands of New York Company that they were working for? In the quest for solutions to this case, Socrates would have found a resolution to this instance (Tayler). In this case, however, from the existing evidence that substantiates his questions, Socrates would have found that both John and Debra were to blame.
On the other hand, the blame shifts more to John, as opposed to Debra. Debra, as an employee, she was under an obligation to ensure that all factors that were the concerns of their company was done accordingly, and the relevant reports thereafter submitted (Stephen). John was in breach of all circumstances that guided his responsibility as a worker who was expected to diligently work as well as care for the property that was under the company’s discretion. He finally claims that the mother company had the box spoilt before it was submitted for submission delivery.
In the case of Glaucon, the following would have been his thoughts about the issues at hand (Morris). In his propositions, Glaucon states that justice is determined by the whether society deems it desirable. However, there are other tenets that motivate individuals in their desire for things. In this case, Glaucon goes on to dictates that, the inner drive that is grounded on feelings can be the basis of people’s desire for justice. Similarly, people’s desires can be accelerated by body demands from an external set up. In this case, Glaucon would have ended up defending John’s actions because he was not acting under any malice. His emotions were low hence the cause of his negligence.
Works Cited
Morris, Kent. Glaucon and Adeimantus on Justice: The Structure of Argument in Book 2 of Plato's Republic. New York: University Press of America, 2012.
Stephen, Law. Philosophy. New York: Dorling Kindersley Limited Publishers, 2010.
Tayler, A. Socrates. New York: Read Books Publishers, 2009.
