Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Injustice in justice systems
Injustice in justice systems
Injustice in justice systems
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Injustice in justice systems
Injustice in justice systems
Injustice in justice systems
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Injustice in justice systems
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
In the Republic, Plato confers with other philosophers about the true definition of justice. Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus relay their theories on justice to Plato, when he inquires as to what justice is. Cephalus believes only speaking the truth and paying one’s debts is the correct definition of justice (The Republic, Book I). However, Plato refutes this with an example of a friend who has lost his wits and would be caused harm by repayment of a debt. This leads to Polemarchus’ view on justice, doing harm to one’s enemies and helping one’s friends.
Socrates believes that justice is the best life to live, but Glaucon is not satisfied by this answer and instead creates an improved defense of Thrasymachus’ argument that life of injustice is better than living a life of justice. Glaucon argues that people are just because it is convenient, it is a title that people have been taught to be, however, it is much easier to be unjust than just. Justice is set up like a competition in which the result is merely a compromise of the best and worst of a group of individuals. What constitutes something as just or not lies in the consequence. Justice is merely a system which is instrumentally valuable.
What is justice? This is the crucial question that Plato attempts to answer in his dialogue, The Republic. He conjures up an allegory that justice can be found in a person, and a person can represent a city. Thus, his entire dialogue focuses on this ‘just’ city and the mechanics of how the city would operate. His dialogue covers a myriad of topics about justice in addition to the human soul, politics, goodness and truth.
In The Republic: Book 1 by Plato, the main argument and discussion being told is the definition of justice and the different perspectives and interpretations. One of the characters in the novel Thrasymachus, an angry guy who thinks everyone is wrong represents the original and analytical explanation. He defines justice as “the interest of the stronger” suggesting that power is correct. Thrasymachus believed that every person acts for themselves and attempts to get what they can but however only the toughest will get what they want. A popular example that portrays this understanding of the definition of justice is how a government serves the interest of its people.
Socrates argues each is made of 3 essential parts; “a rational part, a spirited part and an appetitive or passionate part.” (Pojman & Tramel, 2009, p. 64) These three interrelated parts and the harmony that is produced when each part does what is correct by nature is what Socrates defines as justice. As each part of the soul is to maintain harmony by doing what is correct by nature each man is to maintain harmony by doing what is correct by his nature. “…that is was right for one who is by nature cobbler to cobble and to do nothing else…” (Pojman & Tramel, 2009, p.
Author's name and Qualifications The Bill of Rights is a formal document that has the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution; so the author of the ninth amendment was James Madison who wrote the Bill of Rights. On June 8, 1789, James Madison went to the U.S. Congress and proposed a series of changes to the new Constitution. He argued that the Constitution wouldn’t be complete unless amendments were added that would only protected an individuals' rights. One of his qualifications was that Madison had gone to preparatory school and then to college at Princeton.
One of the main focuses in the Republic of Plato is to prove the value of justice. In Books VIII and IX, tyranny and the soul of the tyrant are discussed at great length with the ultimate goal of proving why it is worthwhile to be just. The portrait of the tyrant is developed in such detail to acts as a metaphor for injustice, while the true philosopher represents justice. By portraying the tyrant in a way that makes clear his faults, Plato is able to demonstrate perfectly the need for justice in both the city and the soul. Through careful analysis of the tyrannical soul, Plato contrasts the philosopher king and the tyrant and in doing so reveals the role that justice plays in the distinguishing between them.
The mores that one is instilled with is a complex concept to which we do not give much thought to in a day to day basis. In Plato’s The Republic, Plato dives into the inner workings of justice and other moral matters through the voice of Socrates, who serves as a character to give the reader a distinct perspective in the narrative. Throughout the text, Plato touches on many issues in Ancient Greek society in order to create a utopist city. Along the agenda, Plato emphasizes the quarrel of the rudimentary benefits of truth vs. lies, and which one of the two would conquer more with justice. In the transpiration of the debate, Plato convinces the reader that the truth is a closer fit to the principles of justice through a fallible initial argument, and analogical points, emphasizing the truth all the way from the tyrant to the slave.
Imagine you as a twelve year old kid living in the streets of Paris, France. As you are slowly dying of starvation the sweet scent of apple pie from a nearby window catches your fancy. While the streets are constantly being watched by guards, you sneak up to the pie and in a flash you steal it while getting caught by a nearby officer. You get sent to prison for 25 years doing hard labor. Do you want to be marginalized by society?
In The Republic, Plato emphasizes the point of justice and just what it is and what it means to others. As Socrates and the other philosophers speak of the matter, issues arise and ideas surface as well as arguments about what it really means, and if there is a straightforward meaning to the concept of justice. Justice in definition and justice in reality end up differently in certain
Justice is one of the most important moral and political concepts. The word comes from the Latin word jus, meaning right or law. According to Kelsen (2000), Justice is primarily a possible, but not a necessary, quality of a social order regulating the mutual relations of men As a result of its importance, prominent and knowledgeable people have shared their views on justice and what it means and how the state is involved in its administration. The likes of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke among others have written extensively on the concept of justice.
Definition and Description of Procedural Justice Procedural justice is the act involved in decision making. It incorporates the process of involving transparency and fairness in making decisions. The incorporation of justice in this process is equally essential it entails that all parties allowed to give their views before decision are made concerning a given matter. Some theories state that restorative and distributive justice might not be met but for as long as there is a fair and justice procedure, there is always the possibility of having outcomes that are equitable (Jason &Tyler, 2003).
In the age of nine, I was diagnosed with Short Achilles Tendon. Although it could be treated by tendon lengthening surgery, the cause of the condition remained unknown. Due to the limitation of knowledge and technology in a small town located in East China, the orthopedist suggested me to seek for better diagnosis in more advanced hospitals. Therefore, my mother started taking me to different cities, different hospitals, and seeing different physicians. In the following half year, I was assumed to have congenita myophagism, cardiovascular disease and even cerebral palsy.
Men make laws to instill order in a society and prevent chaos in any shape or form. Naturally, laws will always be somewhat unjust because it is impossible to consistently construct laws that directly and equally benefit all members of a society. There will always be a majority that makes the laws and a minority that has to obey the laws. Although laws are usually the standard of morality by which we live by, they must be disobeyed in certain situations. These situations are, but not limited to, an undemocratic formation of aforementioned laws, laws that are inherently unjust according to human law which can be synonymous with God’s law.