Describe the difference between freedom of indifference and freedom of virtue

The freedom of indifference is the liberty to choose between good and evil 1. It
gives human beings the will to choose none of the two sides, and the will to freely choose either
good or evil. Freedom of indifference gives human beings the free will to choose when there is
no compelling evidence that choosing either of the two sides will have better consequences. For
example, in deciding on whether the demonstrations will end, one may choose to
believe that they will end, or that they will not end. Also, the freedom of indifference gives an
individual the will to suspend judgment and remain indifferent on the issue. Thus, the individual
neither believes that the demonstrations will end nor denies them. The freedom of indifference
gives one to suspend evidence mostly when they do not have compelling evidence to make a
choice. However, one is also free to choose to believe any proposition or make any decision with
or without compelling evidence.
Further, freedom of indifference is demonstrated when one chooses not to pay attention
to a speaker in a conference. An individual enters a conference hall and makes a decision
whether to pay attention to the speaker or not to. The individual will pay attention if they want to
1 Govier, T. (1997). Socrates’ children: Thinking and knowing in the western tradition.
Broadview Press.

PHILOSOPHY 1010 3
understand the speaker’s point of view or if they want to acquire knowledge. Freedom of
indifference, in this case, gives the individual freedom of thought. One is able to control what the
mind pays attention to and what it does not. The decisions made following the freedom of
indifference do not determine a person’s morality. One makes decisions based on the prevailing
circumstances as opposed to the nature of their character. Socrates states that with only the
freedom of indifference, then people choose to arrange their lives I whatever way that they
please. however, this form of freedom cannot exist alone, hence the need for freedom for virtue.
Freedom for virtue gives human beings the will to be the best versions of themselves.
Socrates refers to it as the finest possession in a democratic state. Freedom for virtue is
demonstrated when humans use their wisdom to make effective decisions and act morally based
on a given situation. The moral truths are naturally inscribed in the human soul. Socrates states
that if this is the case, then, the soul is immortal, and so is the moral truth. Making virtuous
decisions should then occur naturally if humans are to make use of their knowledge of the moral
truth.
For example, when making a moral choice based on freedom for virtue, humans should
first consider what they know about the given issue. For instance, when confronted with the
decision on whether to lie or speak the truth, then one should first inquire what they know about
these two. It is common knowledge that lying is immoral, and it is virtuous to always uphold the
truth. Therefore, in this case, based on the freedom of virtue, one will make the decision, to tell
the truth as it is the virtuous thing to do. However, relying on the freedom of indifference, one
has the free will to either tell the truth, lie or even remain indifferent. Wisdom, courage, and
justice are all necessary ingredients in the attainment of freedom for virtue. When deciding on
whether to pay attention to a conference or not, one would consider what they already know

PHILOSOPHY 1010 4
about the topic. If the topic is on an issue that the listener does not know, then the wise thing
would be to pay attention to. The decision on what to do is based on an inquiry on what the
listener knows and what they want to know. Overall, ultimate freedom is acquired when an
individual is able to make moral choices after an inquiry. The inquiry is personal. Based on these
examples, then moral choices are best made based on freedom for virtue as opposed to freedom
of indifference.
Section B
In Book II Socrates says that justice is both an intrinsic as well as an instrumental good
(357-358). Explain what he means by this and in what sense this makes justice “one of the
finest” of goods.
Socrates refers to justice as an intrinsic good which resides in a person own soul. For an
individual to practice justice, then he must have used his own intimate experience of it. A
naturally virtuous person is easily able to practice justice because this will occur naturally to
them. According to Socrates, such a person can be a good judge in old age. Socrates rules out the
possibility of being a good young judge because he says that a noble judge acquires the
knowledge to practice justice over the years. A naturally virtuous person requires education, and
over time, they will become fine judges. However, the philosopher holds that this is not the case
with a bad person as the value of justice does not occur naturally to them.
Justice as an intrinsic good, is valued both for its own sake as well as its consequences.
Justice is thus one of the finest goods, which people have to love for its own sake as well as for
its own consequences. Justice is fine because it is a good that is valued and esteemed. People do
not only practice justice because they fear the consequences of not practising it, but they do so

PHILOSOPHY 1010 5
because they hold it naturally within themselves. Socrates counters Glaucon’s argument and
states that justice as an intrinsic good is burdensome and beneficial in equal measure. It is chosen
both for its wages as well as for its consequences and not barely for its consequences as Glaucon
argues. It almost occurs naturally and is finetuned through knowledge. It is an intrinsic good
because it acquires its home in the soul. It is a virtue that guards the wellbeing of a human’s soul.
It makes sense to refer to justice as one of the finest goods because according to Socrates,
it will be loved by those who are blessed with happiness both for its consequences as well as for
its nature. It is valuable because of its perfection as a good and is beneficial both at a personal
level as well as in general to the masses. Through justice, the human soul maintains its balance.
It flourishes, is harmonious, and fulfils its nature as a soul. Justice is reflective of the highest
good, whose value in the city cannot be underestimated. Rulers educate its people on this good
because it is instrumental for the harmonious co-existence of city dwellers. In his conversation,
Socrates proves that justice is the finest good because it presents a state where a human being is
in harmony with themselves and is able to create a condition of harmony outside of themselves.
Through justice, all the three parts of a human soul (the spirited, the rational, and the appetitive)
coordinate to effectively perform their functions. Therefore, justice is necessary for the health of
the soul, which is consequently needed for humans to live well. Therefore, justice qualifies as
one of the finest goods.

Section C

The simile of the Divided Line
The analogy of the divided line is presented as a dialogue between Glaucon and Socrates.
At the end of Book VI, Plato is driven by an attempt to explain how the human mind perceives

PHILOSOPHY 1010 6
physical objects. The sun helps in ensuring that objects are visible and also helps in the
generation of objects. Plato states that the sun is the source of growth and nurture. The simile of
the divided line starts by the readers being told to take a line that has been divided into two
unequal parts (AC and CE) 2 . The reader is then asked to divide the unequal parts in the same
proportion (AC should be divided into AB and BC, and CE should be divided into CD and DE).
The ratio should be in such a way that AC; CE is equal to CD; DE.
Scholars are then presented with certain questions. The first question is whether the line’s
orientation is horizontal, vertical or diagonal. The next question is which line is the longest.
Each subsection of the line represents a different mental state. The relativeness of mental clarity
also relates to the relative degree of objects at each level. Section AB is a representation of the
shadows and reflections of physical things 3 . On the other hand, BC constitutes the physical
things themselves. It can also be seen as acts of common sense. The two represent two types of
knowledge, namely the illusion, and the belief. The illusion is based on the everyday human
experience. On the other hand, the belief is how physical objects cast shadows. Illusions can
include opinions of people in the world. The first division is supposed to divide the intelligible
and the visible realm. After subdividing each section, the lowest subsection DE is used in the
representation of physical images (Noesis). Shadows and reelections are referred to by Plato in
constructing his argument. On the other hand, the subsection CD represents the visible originals
of the visible images (Dianoia). Subsection BC is a representation of opinion and beliefs (Pistis).
Section AB also represents opinions but opinions that revolve around likenesses (Eikasia).
The representation of the line shows the intersection between the nature of human beings,
the distinction between belief justified beliefs and opinion, and the assumptions that guide what
2 Smith, N. D. (1996). Plato’s Divided Line. Ancient Philosophy, 16(1), 25.
3 Smith, N. D. (1996). Plato’s Divided Line. Ancient Philosophy, 16(1), 27.

PHILOSOPHY 1010 7
is permissible or not. The analogy is the foundation of Plato’s metaphysical interpretations. Plato
analyzes ideas and their relationship to all other sections of human knowledge. In guiding
individuals on metaphysics, Plato analyzes the methods that should be used to analyze opinions
and justified beliefs 4 . Appearance versus opinion is one of the distinctions that exist and is
represented in the line. Plato is a believer in a strict notion of knowledge. The divided line is
vertical and divided. The segments are then divided again, and this is a representation between
images and originals. Originals represent reality where nothing changes.
Section D
Premise One: If the presidential elections are held in November, Joe Biden or Donald Trump will
win.
Premise Two: Joe Biden will not be the next president.
Conclusion: Therefore, Donald Trump will be the next president.
The argument takes the form of a deductive argument. A valid deductive argument is an
argument where the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion 5 . The premises
cannot be true and the conclusion false. In the argument above, if both premise one and two are
true, the result would be a guarantee that the conclusion is also true. The premises provide strong
support for the conclusion. To this end, the argument is valid. A sound argument is one that is
valid, and the premises are true 6 . A valid argument that has true premises is thus sound. The
argument above passes the test for validity. However, the second premise is not true. It would be

4 Smith, N. D. (1996). Plato’s Divided Line. Ancient Philosophy, 16(1), 45.
5 Politzer, G., & Bourmaud, G. (2002). Deductive reasoning from uncertain conditionals. British Journal of
Psychology, 93(3), 345.
6 Politzer, G., & Bourmaud, G. (2002). Deductive reasoning from uncertain conditionals. British Journal of
Psychology, 93(3), 350.

PHILOSOPHY 1010 8
untruthful to state that Joe Biden cannot become America’s president. As a result, the argument
is unsound.

PHILOSOPHY 1010 9

References

Govier, T. (1997). Socrates’ children: Thinking and knowing in the western tradition. Broadview
Press.
Politzer, G., & Bourmaud, G. (2002). Deductive reasoning from uncertain conditionals. British
Journal of Psychology, 93(3), 345-381.
Smith, N. D. (1996). Plato’s Divided Line. Ancient Philosophy, 16(1), 45.