Course Information
This assignment is designed for intermediate-level courses in Ancient Philosophy, Classical Political Thought, History of Western Philosophy, or Classical Studies (e.g., PHIL 220, POLS 310, CLAS 205, or equivalent). It is suitable for uploading directly to Canvas, Blackboard, Moodle, or similar LMS platforms.
Weight and Due Date
30% of final grade
Due: [Insert date, e.g., Week 10, Friday 11:59 PM via LMS submission]
Late submissions penalized at 5% per day unless extension granted.
Learning Outcomes
- Demonstrate close reading and understanding of primary texts from Plato and Aristotle.
- Compare and contrast key concepts in ancient Greek philosophy with clarity and precision.
- Construct a coherent philosophical argument supported by textual evidence.
- Engage appropriately with scholarly secondary sources.
Task Description
Write a 1,200–1,500 word essay (excluding bibliography) that compares and contrasts Plato’s and Aristotle’s conceptions of justice. Focus primarily on Plato’s account in the Republic (especially Books II–IV) and Aristotle’s treatment in the Nicomachean Ethics (Book V) and the Politics (relevant sections).
Your essay must address the following core questions:
- How does Plato define justice in the individual and the city, and how are the two analogous?
- How does Aristotle define justice (general and particular), and how does his approach differ from Plato’s?
- What are the key points of agreement and disagreement, and how do these reflect broader differences in their philosophical methods (e.g., idealism vs. empiricism)?
A strong essay will move beyond summary to offer critical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each view.
Requirements
- Word count: 1,200–1,500 words (indicated on cover page).
- Formatting: Double-spaced, 12-point Times New Roman, 1-inch margins.
- Citation style: MLA (preferred for humanities/philosophy courses) or Chicago author-date. Include in-text citations and a Works Cited/References list.
- Sources: Engage directly with primary texts (Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and Politics). Incorporate at least two scholarly secondary sources (peer-reviewed books or journal articles; avoid general websites or encyclopedias).
- Original work: Submissions will be checked for plagiarism via Turnitin or similar.
- File format: PDF or Word document, named LastName_FirstName_Assignment2.
Grading Rubric
| Criteria | Excellent (A range: 80–100%) | Good (B range: 70–79%) | Satisfactory (C range: 60–69%) | Needs Improvement (D/F: below 60%) | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Understanding of Primary Texts | Accurate, nuanced interpretation of key passages; demonstrates deep engagement with Plato and Aristotle. | Generally accurate interpretation; some depth shown. | Basic understanding; some inaccuracies or over-reliance on summary. | Significant misunderstandings or minimal engagement with texts. | 30% |
| Comparison and Analysis | Clear, insightful comparison; strong critical evaluation of agreements, disagreements, and implications. | Solid comparison with some critical insight. | Adequate comparison but limited critical depth. | Superficial or descriptive only; little analysis. | 30% |
| Argument and Structure | Clear thesis; logical progression; effective use of evidence to support claims. | Clear thesis and structure; evidence generally supports claims. | Thesis present but vague; organisation adequate. | Weak or absent thesis; disorganised. | 20% |
| Use of Sources and Citation | Effective integration of at least two relevant scholarly sources; flawless citation. | Appropriate use of sources; minor citation issues. | Sources used but minimally; some citation errors. | Inadequate or no secondary sources; major citation problems. | 10% |
| Writing Mechanics and Style | Clear, concise, academic prose; virtually no errors in grammar, spelling, or punctuation. | Clear prose; minor errors. | Readable but frequent errors or awkward phrasing. | Poor clarity; numerous errors affecting readability. | 10% |
- Submit a 4–5 page comparative paper analyzing Plato’s and Aristotle’s views on justice and the ideal political community, with primary text engagement and scholarly references; full rubric provided.
Plato structures justice around harmony in the soul and city, where reason rules, spirit assists, and appetite obeys. The just city requires philosophers as kings because only they grasp the Form of the Good and can arrange society accordingly. Aristotle rejects this hierarchical idealism, arguing instead that justice involves treating equals equally and unequals unequally in proportion to merit. His preferred polity mixes elements of democracy and oligarchy, moderated by a strong middle class, reflecting observed human behaviour rather than abstract ideals. These contrasting approaches reveal Plato’s top-down rationalism against Aristotle’s grounded, teleological realism. As Richard Kraut notes, Aristotle’s critique targets the impracticality of Plato’s communal arrangements for guardians while preserving respect for his teacher’s emphasis on virtue (Kraut, R. (2002) Aristotle: Political Philosophy. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0195131607.001.0001).
Works Cited
- Plato (2004) Republic. Translated by G. M. A. Grube, revised by C. D. C. Reeve. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
- Aristotle (2013) Politics. Translated by Carnes Lord. 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226921853.001.0001.
- Aristotle (2011) Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by Robert C. Bartlett and Susan D. Collins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Kraut, R. (2002) Aristotle: Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195131607.001.0001.
- Annas, J. (2018) ‘Virtue and happiness in Plato and Aristotle’, in C. Bobonich (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 143–165. doi:10.1017/9781316717264.009.
- Miller, F. D. (2021) ‘Aristotle on justice’, in M. Deslauriers and P. Destrée (eds.) The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 171–194. doi:10.1017/9781108686778.009.
