1. Where would you situate Plato on the “nature” vs “nurture” question?

Try to Answer
usIng specific references to the text.

Plato is almost certainly on the “nature” side of the debate due to his natural distrust in people’s
morals. To support this, multiple times in the first book he described how humans need a society
based on laws, and that without it people would steal and take advantage of each other. As well
as this, throughout his political theories it is consistent with the theme of ensuring people are not
morally compromised and reinforcing the notion of working together to achieve a common goal,
which frankly is not based on realism.

2. At 464e, Socrates claims that by abolishing families, his city’s Guardians will “be
spared all the dissension that arises between people because of the possession of
money, children, and families.” Do you agree with his critique? Or do you think that
families (of any form) offer more social benefits than detriments?

I disagree with his critique as the very act of abolishing families both literally and figuratively as
it would create an uproar due to the tribal mentality that humans innately possess. In addition to
this, the abolishment of families would be a great systematic change which, in my belief, offers
little to no social benefits. Another concept of note is in regards Socrates’ claim that there would
be no dissension between people after abolishing families, which is quite an idealistic view and
it is ironic considering that this is coming from the same individual who believes that people are
innately evil and untrustworthy. Logically speaking, a vast majority of society would not be okay
with the dissolution of such a core aspect of life. Not to mention that if his claims about innate
human behavior are true, it would be even harder to imagine people in society being pleased
with such a radical change.