Get Original Solution – Knowledge, Virtue, and the Just State - EssayQuest

PHIL 101 / PHI 210 / PHIL 1001 · Introduction to Philosophy & Ancient Greek Philosophy · Assignment 2

Instructor Note: All submissions are processed through Turnitin. Academic integrity provisions of your institution’s Student Conduct Policy apply in full. Review the rubric before you begin drafting.

1. Course Context and Assignment Rationale

The first five weeks of this course have traced Western philosophy from its pre-Socratic origins to the Aristotelian synthesis of the fourth century BCE. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle form the intellectual core of that arc, yet their methods, commitments, and conclusions diverge in ways that remain genuinely contested among scholars. A student who can map those divergences — and explain why they matter — has developed the primary analytical skill this course demands.

Assignment 2 requires you to write a focused comparative essay in which you assess how these three philosophers understood the relationship between knowledge, virtue, and political justice. The task is explicitly analytical, not merely descriptive. You are expected to identify a specific point of philosophical tension or disagreement, argue for a clear interpretive position, and support that position with evidence drawn directly from primary texts.

This assignment type — the source-based comparative analysis — recurs across philosophy, history, classical studies, and political science because it trains the transferable skill of close argument-reconstruction from primary evidence. Instructors across programs at institutions including Southern New Hampshire University, Grand Canyon University, the University of Toronto, the University of Edinburgh, Monash University, and the Australian National University use structurally identical tasks in equivalent introductory modules.

2. Learning Outcomes Assessed

On successful completion of this assignment, you will be able to:

Accurately reconstruct the central philosophical arguments of Socrates (as represented in Plato’s dialogues), Plato’s own theoretical philosophy, and Aristotle’s empiricist ethics and politics.
Identify and articulate substantive points of agreement and disagreement across these three traditions using appropriate philosophical vocabulary.
Develop and defend an original analytic thesis supported by textual evidence and peer-reviewed secondary scholarship.
Apply standard MLA citation and documentation practice to primary philosophical texts and scholarly sources.
Demonstrate academic writing skills commensurate with introductory college-level study in the humanities.

3. Task Description

Write a 1,050–1,400-word comparative analytical essay that addresses the following central question:

“To what extent do Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle agree on what virtue is, how it is acquired, and what role it plays in producing a just political community? Where they disagree, which philosopher’s position do you find most persuasive, and why?”

Your essay must take a clear, arguable position in answer to this question. It is not sufficient to summarise what each philosopher says. The quality of your analytical argument — the strength of your thesis, the quality of your textual evidence, and the rigour of your reasoning — determines your grade.

Scope and Required Coverage

Your essay must engage, at minimum, with all three of the following pairs:

Socrates and the claim that virtue is knowledge (drawn from the Meno, Protagoras, or the Apology as represented by Plato).
Plato’s Theory of Forms and the philosopher-king as presented in The Republic (particularly Books IV–VII, including the Allegory of the Cave).
Aristotle’s doctrine of the Golden Mean and eudaimonia as set out in the Nicomachean Ethics (Books I–II and X) and the political implications developed in the Politics (Book I, Book III).

You may extend your discussion to additional texts — the Phaedo, Symposium, or Aristotle’s Eudemian Ethics — but breadth alone does not substitute for analytic depth. Choose a narrow enough focus that your argument can be fully developed within the word limit.

4. Assignment Requirements

4.1 Essay Structure

Introduction (approx. 150 words): Identify the philosophical problem, name the three thinkers, and state your thesis clearly in the final two sentences of the opening paragraph. Avoid biographical background. Get to the argument.
Body Paragraphs (approx. 750–950 words): Develop a minimum of three analytical body paragraphs, each built around a single claim substantiated by textual evidence. Do not organise the essay as three consecutive summaries of each philosopher. Instead, organise around the conceptual questions — virtue and knowledge, the role of habituation, the nature of justice — so that each paragraph puts the philosophers in genuine dialogue with one another.
Conclusion (approx. 150 words): Restate your thesis in light of the evidence you have presented. Briefly identify one unresolved difficulty in your argument or one aspect of the debate that merits further study. Do not introduce new evidence.

4.2 Sources

A minimum of two primary sources (from the list of core texts in Section 3) must be cited with specific passage references (e.g., Plato, Republic 514a–520a; Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1106b15–25).
A minimum of two peer-reviewed secondary sources published between 2018 and 2026 must be integrated into the argument. These must appear as in-text citations, not merely in the Works Cited list.
General encyclopaedias, Wikipedia, SparkNotes, and similar study-aid sites do not count toward the secondary source requirement.
All sources must be listed on a Works Cited page in MLA 9th edition format.

4.3 Formatting

Font: 12pt Times New Roman or equivalent serif; double-spaced; 1-inch margins.
Header: Student name, instructor name, course code and section, date (MLA block, top-left, p. 1).
Running header: Last name and page number, top-right, all pages.
Title: Centred, in plain text (not bolded or underlined).
Word count stated at the end of the essay, below the final paragraph, before Works Cited.
File: saved as a .docx file; named: LastName_FirstName_PHIL101_A2.docx

4.4 Academic Integrity

All work submitted must be your own. Paraphrase and summary are acceptable; unattributed copying is not.
The use of AI writing tools (including but not limited to ChatGPT and similar large language models) to generate essay content, generate arguments, or paraphrase sources on your behalf constitutes academic dishonesty under current institutional policy. Use of AI tools for spell-check and grammar suggestions is permitted with disclosure.
Any submission flagged by the institution’s plagiarism detection system will be reviewed individually. Suspected violations will be referred to the Academic Integrity Office.
In a 4–5 page comparative essay, evaluate the philosophical disagreements among Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle on virtue, knowledge, and justice. Complete this written assignment using MLA format for PHIL 101 or Ancient Greek Philosophy. Full rubric, Works Cited, and Week 4 discussion post instructions included.

One of the most productive fault lines in ancient Greek ethics runs between Socratic intellectualism and Aristotelian habituation. Socrates, at least as Plato depicts him in the Meno, treats virtue as a form of knowledge that cannot be reliably taught through training or role modelling alone, a position that makes both Plato’s tripartite soul and Aristotle’s doctrine of moral habituation look like direct correctives to the Socratic starting point. Plato accepts that most citizens will never ascend to knowledge of the Form of the Good, so the well-ordered polis must rely on philosopher-kings whose reason governs the appetitive and spirited parts of the civic body — a solution that ties personal and political virtue together through rational hierarchy. Aristotle, rejecting the Forms as metaphysically redundant, grounds virtue instead in practice: the virtuous person is not someone who has grasped an abstract truth but someone who has been correctly habituated to respond well to pleasure and pain, a conception captured in his definition of moral virtue as a stable disposition to feel and act in accordance with the mean (Alabi, 2023, p. 103). What distinguishes these three positions most sharply is their answer to a single question: whether knowing what virtue is, and doing what virtue requires, are the same achievement or two separate ones that demand different kinds of education.

5. Week 4 Discussion Board Post — Pre-Essay Preparation

Discussion Board — Week 4 Instructions

Discussion Prompt: The Unexamined Life and the Just Citizen

Socrates declares in Plato’s Apology (38a) that the unexamined life is not worth living. Aristotle, by contrast, argues in Politics I.2 that the human being is by nature a political animal (zōon politikon), and that the highest expression of human virtue is realised only within the context of the polis.

Initial Post (due by Day 3 of Week 4, 300–350 words): Respond to the following question in a substantive, well-reasoned post:

Is the kind of self-examination Socrates demands compatible with Aristotle’s claim that the human being is, fundamentally, a political animal? Can a person engage in genuine Socratic inquiry and still be a good citizen in Aristotle’s sense? Refer to at least one specific passage from either the Apology, the Nicomachean Ethics, or the Politics to support your position.

Peer Response Posts (two responses required, due by Day 7, minimum 150 words each): Engage critically and respectfully with two classmates. Do not simply agree or summarise. Identify one specific point of philosophical tension in your peer’s argument and develop it with a counter-example or a competing textual interpretation.

Discussion Rubric — Quick Reference

Substantive engagement with the philosophical question — 40%
Accurate reference to at least one primary text — 25%
Quality and specificity of peer responses — 25%
Clarity of expression and adherence to word-count guidelines — 10%

6. Marking Rubric — Assignment 2 (100 Points Total)

Grade Band Key

High Distinction / A+ (90–100)
Distinction / A (80–89)
Credit / B (70–79)
Pass / C (60–69)
Fail / D–F (0–59)

Criterion	Max Points	High Distinction (90–100%)	Distinction (80–89%)	Credit (70–79%)	Pass (60–69%)	Fail (Below 60%)
Thesis and Argument	25	Original, specific, and genuinely arguable thesis. The argument is sustained throughout with logical precision and no unsupported inferential leaps.	Clear thesis present; argument is mostly well-sustained with minor lapses in logical coherence.	Thesis is identifiable but general. Argument sometimes drifts into description rather than analysis.	Thesis is vague or implicit. Much of the essay summarises without making or defending a claim.	No discernible thesis. Essay is primarily a narrative summary of the three philosophers.
Textual Evidence and Citation	25	Minimum required sources met and exceeded. All evidence is specific (page/section references cited), accurately represented, and purposefully integrated to advance the argument.	Required sources met. Evidence is specific and mostly well-integrated; occasional over-quotation or under-explanation.	Required sources met but evidence is occasionally vague or used decoratively rather than argumentatively.	Minimum sources barely met or not fully met. Evidence is general, paraphrased inaccurately, or poorly integrated.	Required sources not met. Evidence is absent, fabricated, or entirely irrelevant to the argument.
Philosophical Accuracy and Understanding	25	All philosophical claims are accurate and demonstrate genuine conceptual understanding. Key terms (eudaimonia, the Forms, elenchus, phronesis, the Golden Mean) are used precisely and with evident grasp of their theoretical context.	Claims are accurate with only minor conceptual imprecision. Technical terms generally used correctly.	Core positions represented adequately; some oversimplification or occasional conflation of positions (e.g., attributing Plato’s views directly to Socrates).	Significant conceptual errors or repeated conflation of positions. Understanding is surface-level.	Fundamental misrepresentation of one or more philosophers’ positions. Evidence of no substantive engagement with primary texts.
Comparative Analysis and Critical Engagement	15	Puts the three philosophers in direct, substantive dialogue. Identifies and develops a genuinely significant point of tension or convergence. A clear and well-reasoned evaluative position is taken and defended.	Comparison is present and meaningful; evaluative position is evident but could be developed more rigorously.	Comparison exists but remains at the level of parallel description rather than genuine analytical dialogue. Evaluation is tentative.	Comparison is superficial (listing differences without explaining their significance). Little or no evaluative position taken.	No meaningful comparison. Three philosophers treated in separate, isolated sections.
Structure, Clarity, and Academic Writing	10	Paragraphs are logically sequenced, clearly topic-sentenced, and cohesively linked. Prose is precise, varied, and consistently academic in register. Introduction and conclusion are fully functional.	Structure is sound with minor transitional weaknesses. Writing is clear and academic throughout.	Structure is mostly clear; some paragraphs are underdeveloped or run together. Writing is readable but occasionally imprecise.	Structure is inconsistent. Paragraphs lack clear focus. Writing is unclear or informal in places.	Poorly organised throughout. Writing impedes comprehension. Introduction and/or conclusion absent or non-functional.
MLA Formatting and Documentation	10	MLA 9th ed. applied correctly throughout: in-text citations, header, running header, Works Cited page. No formatting errors. File named and submitted correctly.	MLA applied consistently with only 1–2 minor errors (e.g., punctuation in a citation).	MLA applied with 3–5 errors. Works Cited page present but with inconsistencies.	MLA attempted but with numerous errors. Works Cited page present but incomplete or incorrectly formatted.	MLA not applied or Works Cited page absent. Sources are not cited in the text.
Total	100	Grade conversions applied per institutional policy. See LMS for Late Submission and Special Consideration provisions.

7. Recommended Primary Texts (Assigned Editions)

Plato. The Republic. Translated by G. M. A. Grube, revised by C. D. C. Reeve, Hackett Publishing, 1992. [Books IV–VII are the minimum required reading for this assignment.]
Plato. Apology and Meno. In Five Dialogues, translated by G. M. A. Grube, revised by John Cooper, 2nd ed., Hackett Publishing, 2002.
Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by Terence Irwin, 2nd ed., Hackett Publishing, 1999. [Books I–II and X are the minimum required reading.]
Aristotle. Politics. Translated by C. D. C. Reeve, Hackett Publishing, 1998. [Books I and III are the minimum required reading.]

Students wishing to consult the Stephanus pagination (for Plato) or Bekker numbers (for Aristotle) used in scholarly citation should refer to the introductory guidance posted on the course LMS under ‘Citing Ancient Texts.’

8. Works Cited — Peer-Reviewed Secondary Sources

The following sources are recommended as starting points for secondary scholarship. At minimum, two of these (or equivalent peer-reviewed articles sourced independently through your institution’s library) must appear in your essay.

Alabi, J. O. (2023) ‘The Primacy of Global Justice in Aristotle’s Political Philosophy: Exploring Contemporary Implications’, International Journal of Philosophy, 11(4), pp. 101–110. doi: 10.11648/j.ijp.20231104.12
Jurist, E., Greenberg, D., Pizziferro, M., Alaluf, R., and Perez Sosa, M. (2023) ‘Virtue, Well-Being, and Mentalized Affectivity’, Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome, 26(3), 710. doi: 10.4081/ripppo.2023.710
Kraut, R. (2022) ‘Aristotle’s Ethics’, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, revised ed. Stanford University. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/
Shields, C. (2023) ‘Aristotle’, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, revised ed. Stanford University. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle/
Singh, M. (2022) ‘A Brief Study of Virtue Ethics in Greek Philosophy’, Central Asian Journal of Literature, Philosophy and Culture, 3(1), pp. 20–29. doi: 10.51699/cajlpc.v3i1.282

Note to students: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (plato.stanford.edu) is an authoritative peer-reviewed academic resource and is acceptable as a secondary source. Confirm with your instructor whether it counts toward the two-source minimum for your specific section.