ipl-logo

Cephalus Definition Of Justice In Plato's The Republic

607 Words3 Pages

Considering how the Piraeus, Athens’ port area, contains individuals hailing from various locations, it would that such a place would be where Socrates encounters different definitions of justice. In Book One of Plato’s The Republic, Socrates challenges Cephalus’ belief that justice is simply being honest and paying back the dues that one owes to the gods and to his fellow men. By providing examples of where it would be unjust to repay one’s debts, Socrates refutes Cephalus’ definition of justice. In these scenarios, paying back those debts would pose a risk of harm to innocent people, which would be unjust since justice does not involve harming others.
Since Cephalus is a religious patriarch, his idea of justice results from his fear of what …show more content…

To prove this, Socrates describes how “everyone would surely say that if a man takes weapons from a friend when the latter is of sound mind, and the friend demands them back when he is mad, one shouldn’t give back such things, and the man who gave them back would not be just” (331c). Even though the man who gave back the weapons did it to repay his debt, it would be unjust since the weapons could be used to harm other people, leaving the man with the guilt of knowing that any casualties were the consequences of their actions.
Additionally, if someone was to follow Cephalus’ definition of justice and be completely honest with his friend who was of an unsound mind, it might result in the friend lashing out. Because the friend is not completely rational at that current moment in time, they would not completely understand the logical truth. As a result, they would become enraged and act violently. Such a reason is why Socrates also describes how “moreover, one should not be willing to tell someone in this state the whole truth” (331c), to prevent further risk of harm to other people, which would prevent an injustice from

Show More
Related
342 Words | 2 Pages

the Republic, Socrates argues that justice ought to be valued both for its own sake and for the sake of its consequences (358a1–3). His interlocutors Glaucon and Adeimantus have reported a number of arguments to the effect that the value of justice lies purely in the rewards and reputation that are the usual consequence of being seen to be just, and have asked Socrates to say what justice is and to show that justice is always intrinsically better than is acting contrary to justice when doing so would win you more non-moral goods. Glaucon presents these arguments as renewing Thrasymachus’ Book 1 position that justice is “another’s good” (358b–c, cf. 343c), which Thrasymachus had associated with the claim that the rulers in any constitution frame

Read More
499 Words | 2 Pages

Socrates and Euthyphro ran into each other outside the court of Athens. Socrates is there because he is charged for impiety by Meletus, while Euthyphro is there because he is prosecuting his own father for an unintentional murder of a household slave. After listening to the reason of Euthyphro’s presence at court, Socrates is flattered by him, as he thinks surely a person bringing charges against his own father must have great knowledge on piety and impiety. He thinks no one will do such a thing unless they are absolutely sure it is the right thing to do so he asks Euthyphro to teach him what holiness is and what piety and impiety is, so that it might help him in his trial against Meletus. In reply at first Euthyphro says that piety is what he is doing, prosecuting the person who offended religion by murdering, even though he is his own father.

Read More
543 Words | 3 Pages

Breaking this agreement would leave his conscience guilty and make his life not worthwhile. He also believes that if he were to leave it would tarnish his reputation of him, his children, who he wanted to raise in Athens, would also have to bear his reputation which would be ruined if he left. Socrates would rather die knowing that he did not break his agreement with Athens and ruin his reputation and have a clean conscience than flee to another city and live out the rest of his life with the guilt. Socrates also says that if he were to escape it would be hurting the city by undermining the judicial system and giving it no credibility to convict other criminals who would escape just as he did and leaving it susceptible to a state of no order and

Read More
1118 Words | 5 Pages

In this paper I will argue that Socrates’s argument at 50a-b of the Crito would be not harming his fellow citizens by breaking the laws. Based on the readings from Plato’s The Five Dialogues, I will go over the reasoning of Socrates’ view on the good life. I will then discuss the three arguments Crito has for Socrates regarding his evasion of the death sentence including the selfish, the practicality, and the moral arguments. I will deliberate an objection to the argument and reply to the objections made in the paper and conclude with final thoughts. Socrates argues in the Crito that he should not escape or disobey the law because it is unethical.

Read More
643 Words | 3 Pages

In Plato’s, The Republic, Book I, Socrates tries to prove to Thrasymachus “whether just people also live better and are happier than unjust ones” (352d). He argues that everything has a predisposed proficiency at a function, and that this functions are performed well by the peculiar virtue and badly by means of its vice (353a-353d) . The point of this paper is to present Socrates argument and evaluate it to the best of my ability. This argument can be categorized as an inductive generalization. Socrates states that the function of anything is what it alone can do or what it does best.

Read More
732 Words | 3 Pages

Finally, Socrates claims that the unjust man is ignorant, weak and bad. Socrates argument is effective in the way that he does not shatter Thrasymachus’ argument without reason, he is given many examples that change his way of thinking. Thrasymachus is told to put his ‘set in stone’ ideas under different situations, and once he does, he can clearly see that he should not have been so stubborn, as soon as he does so, he can see that his arguments aren’t suited to all situations. By the end of the argument, Thrasymachus isn’t so much debating the definition of justice, as he is defining the required traits to be a ruler of

Read More
1434 Words | 6 Pages

In this essay, I will present an argument that shows that Plato will convince Socrates to reconsider his decision to receive the death sentence. Plato would show Socrates that his three reasons for staying to receive his sentence is unjust because his action is fuelled by injustice. I will also show that Socrates will agree with Plato about the unjust consequences that his actions may bring after Plato reasons why Socrates is doing an injustice. Finally, Plato would then proceed to show Socrates that his decision to stay cannot result in happiness and justice which in turn will cause Socrates to re-evaluate accepting his death sentence according to his own ideals of a happy and just life.

Read More
1382 Words | 6 Pages

Socrates bases this view of justice on the worth of living a good life. “And is life worth living for us with that part of us corrupted by unjust actions” (47e) If we corrupt our soul with injustice, our life would not be worth living, therefore one must never commit an injustice. “When one has come to an agreement that is just with someone, one should fulfill it.”(49e) It is this agreement with the Laws that Socrates would be violating, if he were to

Read More
1169 Words | 5 Pages

Socrates say’s this cannot be true because most of the people in this world make mistakes in judging who the real friends are and who the enemies are. Thrasymachus’s impression of justice is that the stronger person decides what justice is. Thrasymachus definition of justice raises two questions which needed clarification. First question is what exactly

Read More
727 Words | 3 Pages

The Social Contract Plato’s Crito depicts a conversation between Socrates and Crito. Socrates’ friends intend to help him escape from prison before he is executed. Their conversation touches upon subjects like justice, injustice and the appropriate response to injustice. Socrates argues that one must not answer to injustice with more injustice as that would be an injury to the laws and to the city of Athens.

Read More
1021 Words | 5 Pages

In Apology, Socrates faces possible execution as he stands trial in front of his fellow Athenian men. This jury of men must decide whether Socrates has acted impiously against the gods and if he has corrupted the youth of Athens. Socrates claims in his defense that he wants to live a private life, away from public affairs and teachings in Athens. He instead wants to focus on self-examination and learning truths from those in Athens through inquiry. Socrates argues that "a [man] who really fights for justice must lead a private, not a public, life if [he] is to survive for even a short time" (32a).

Read More
1006 Words | 5 Pages

That is why Socrates believes that doing injustice is much worse than suffering it for it is more shameful and that person will be unhappy because of that shame. I think that anyone who is put in the place of Polus will reply the same, since nobody would want to feel the guilt and the shame of doing injustice. The act of committing injustice actions goes back to the root of

Read More
770 Words | 4 Pages

When it comes to justice, Polemarchus believes that justice is “…helping friends and harming enemies.”. Socrates questions this point of view because according to Polemarchus’ view point, only the people who are close to him and in his circle of friends would be worthy of any kind of Justice. Polemarchus is wrong in this viewpoint because if only the people that you know who are of your similar social status and you interact with on a day to day basis are considered friends, what of those that you do not know? Or what of those who are not of your social status, that you do not interact with? Socrates questions this by asking, “Do you mean by friends those who seem to be good to an individual, or those who are, even if they don't seem to be, and similar with enemies?”.

Read More
832 Words | 4 Pages

I think that there is a fallacy of irrelevance. In the book, Socrates sets out to defend the idea that it is always in one’s best interest to be just and to act justly and he suggests that the just person as one who has a balanced soul will lead one to act justly or why mental health amounts to justice. I feel that justice includes actions in relation to others, it includes considerations of other people’s good, and includes strong motivations not to act unjustly. I believe that Socrates’ defense of justice does not include constraining reasons to think that a person with a balanced soul will refrain from acts that are commonly thought to be unjust like theft, murder, and adultery.

Read More
1151 Words | 5 Pages

He begins his arguments with describing doing an act of injustice like killing, justly. Socrates compares killing

Read More

More about Cephalus Definition Of Justice In Plato's The Republic

Related Topics

Open Document