In the Republic, Plato gives an extensive theory of justice. Three classes exist, rulers (legislators/deliberates), auxilaries (enforcers), and producers. What God has mixed into one's own soul decides, whether it is gold, silver, or iron/bronze, decides what class one belong's in. Each one of these classes has the potential to best develop a
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 Plato's Gorgias, it is apparent that Socrates has no desire to be a good statesman as it is defined in the eyes of the Athenians. His calculation is that Athenian rhetoricians place no reliance on facts or truth, nor are these their aim. Instead, they rely on the illusion of knowledge, and this morally weakens both themselves and their audiences. It is clear however, that if he wishes, Socrates is able to match most or all of the other statesmen in Athens, as is clearly indicated by his very eloquent speech which ends the dialogue. Additionally, under his own definition of a good statesman, it is evident that Socrates is more than qualified.
Plato contests this view on justice because he believes doing harm to anyone would be an injustice. This theory leads to their conclusion the just man is one who is useful. Thrasymachus refers to justice in an egoistical manner, saying “justice is in the interest of the stronger” (The Republic, Book I). He believes injustice is virtuous and wise and justice is vice and ignorance, but Socrates disagrees with this statement as believes the opposing view. As a result of continual rebuttals against their arguments,
Glaucon goes on to tell the story of The Ring of Gyges. In this story, a man is given a ring that has the power to make him invisible, so that he may perform unjust actions without anyone knowing it was he. Glaucon uses this story to touch on his thoughts about the nature of justice. He believes that by nature, people only act justly because they believe that is what is expected of them. If someone had a ring and they actually chose to not use the rings, others would praise that person, but ultimately, people would think of this person as a fool for not using the power they had.
In Plato’s Republic, Plato analyzes Socrates’ accounts about society, justice, and moralism. In an effort to answer two important questions—what is justice and why should we be just—Socrates engages in a dialogue with various individuals. Polemarchus and Cephalus each offer similar statements as to what they believe justice to be. Polemarchus states that justice is living up to your legal obligations: “to owe something good to their friends, never something bad” (332a). In a clever manner, Socrates refutes his friends by exposing possible contradictions within their arguments.
If the opportunity arose, where no consequences were given for someone’s actions, do you think that individual will still commit an unfavorable action such as killing for his own personal need? In “The Ring of Gyges” the disposition of justice is called into question. As humans continue to live we must contemplate the true driving force for our morality. A discussion between Socrates and Glaucon is one main focal point into explaining the differences in how humans truly established their morality. Glaucon believes humans are restrained by consequences and human’s happiness comes from being an unjust person rather than Socrates’ belief of being just truly leads to happiness.
In Plato’s The Republic” written in 380 BC, Plato introduces two characters Polemarchus and Thrasymachus who hold two separate opinions on Justice. They both are made to give their own opinions on Justice by Socrates. Both standpoints accurately represent Justice in sirtain situations. The word justice can be represented in many ways because it holds a broad meaning. They are covering two completely different aspects of Justice.
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.
Socrates is quoted as stating, “An unexamined life is a life not worth living” (38 a). Socrates was a founding figure of western philosophy, and a stable for many ideas. He lived in Athens, Greece teaching his students, like Plato, questioning politics, ethical choices, and many other things in Greek society. In the Trial and death of Socrates: Four Dialogues by Plato, it explores the abstract questioning Socrates had towards many of the normal social properties, which led to his trial, resulting in his death. The most important aspects discussed in the dialogues is the questioning of what is pious and impious, what it means to be wise, and good life.
1 What is the moral of Plato’s story of the Ring of Gyges? Is he correct in his basic assumption? The moral of Plato’s story is that when a person has the opportunity to be unjust they will be unjust. If there were no laws people would act in unjust ways and I would tend to agree with this train of thought.
Plato regarded justice as the true principle of social life. Plato in his day found a lot of evil in society. He saw unrighteousness rampant and injustice enthroned.
Analogously, the term justice is defined as a quality of becoming fair. It is notable that different philosophers also contributed to the topics in question. This owes to the truth that Thrasymachus, Cephalus, and Polemarchus discussed justice. This paper not only analyzes philosophies from Plato and Aristotle who discuss justice and happiness respectively, but also highlights the similarities between the two philosophers. Prior to Plato’s analysis of the term justice, different philosophers had communicated their opinions on justice.
Plato’s republic aims to describe a just state, and in turn a just individual consistently throughout the text. By analogising the justice of the state and the justice of the individual, Plato attempts to demonstrate that a just society will breed just individuals. However, there are certain loop holes within his thought process that can lead one to wonder whether or not his ideas are pragmatic, and could function within a real societal structure- and if human beings given their inherently selfish nature, can adopt the traits necessary in order to achieve justice and the ideal state described in the Republic. Plato described the human soul as a “tripartite soul” where three main qualities seen in the human being, will also be reflected in the three classes of the ideal state. Reason is the highest of the three main qualities, and it forms the class of rulers and guardians.
In Plato’s Republic, Socrates and his peers attempt to define justice. Unlike the definitions that his peers give, Socrates is searching to define justice as a structure, not a set of behaviors. Socrates uses a tripartite city-soul analogy to define justice and show that it is found when there is harmony between the three parts of the city—guardians, auxiliaries, producers—mirrored to the three parts of the soul—reason, spirit, appetite. Although Socrates provides a well-structured account of justice in an attempt to demonstrate that there cannot be social justice—in the city—if people don’t first bring internal justice—in the soul—in themselves, he has a notable contradiction in his premises. In Socrates’ ideal city it is a necessary condition of an auxiliary acting in a just way that he must cause any producers who get out of hand, or
