More handpicked essays just for you.
Plato's republic and justice
The problem of justice in platos republic
Plato's republic thrasymachus justice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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
Political activists and philosophers alike have a challenging task of determining the conditions under which citizens are morally entitled to go against the law. Socrates and Martin Luther King, Jr. had different opinions on the obligation of the citizens in a society to obey the law. Although they were willing to accept the legal punishment, King believed that there are clear and definable circumstances where it would be appropriate, and sometimes mandatory, to purposely disobey unjust laws. Socrates did not. Socrates obeyed what he considered to be an unjust verdict because he believed that it was his obligation, as a citizen of Athens, to persuade or obey its Laws, no matter how dire the consequences.
Socrates compares the relationship between a citizen and a city to that of a child and a parent. Athens has nurtured Socrates in body and mind, given him an ideal environment to raise his own children in, to give him a platform to exhort people to be virtuous (Crito, 51a). As any child benefits from the protections and provisions of a parent, he must also obey the parent when it requires something of him. So, Socrates considers it his civic duty to obey Athens wishes since he has benefited from his citizenship. Socrates reaches a conclusion that defies a common-sense understanding of
The first concept that I noticed shared by Russell and Socrates was the concept that one had to remove themselves before serious philosophical contemplation could take place. In Russell 's case, he refers to the "Self" and the "Not-Self". With Socrates, as seen in the Apology, confronting his accuser about the corruption of youth, his accuser is silent because he had not given the matter any thought. Socrates awareness of his own ignorance frees him from what Russell would refer to as "Self". I mention this because it serves as a common theme even as both philosophers differ in their messages.
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.
When all the functions of society are performed by the rightful class, the resulting outcome will be justice. Each class has a duty to perform the responsibilities they are naturally best fit for and should refrain from executing another’s job. The state will be unjust if meddling occurs as it directly goes against the true definition of justice according to Plato. When the auxiliaries try to perform the role of the rulers or the workers attempt to be a guardian, the state is damaged and the exchanging of roles in the society will lead to the ultimate destruction of the state. The fourth virtue of a just city is justice because when each component of the state performs its main purpose, justice can be
He uses the example of ruling a city, where a government would change the rules and laws to best suit them, and as the rules are followed by those who act justly, the just would be acting in the favour of the stronger. Socrates objects to this and claims that humans will make mistake, as that is part of being human, and may
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
According to Socrates there are two types of justice, the political justice and the justice of a particular man. As we know, city is bigger than a man. Socrates believes that it is easier to find justice at the political level which means in the city, thus he tries to define a just city from scrap, and will see in which stage justice enters. Also, Socrates tries to find justice in the city before finding justice in the individuals because individuals are not at all self-sufficient. We humans have similar needs such as food, clothing and shelter and in order to accomplish these goals human beings form unions, where each and every individual specializes in a field.
Socrates started his life as an average Athen citizen. His parents worked, making an honest living. But as Socrates grew up, he began to realize that his mind questioned things and wondered how come no one else questioned the same things or at least think about the answers to the questions that were not answered. So, as his mind kept wandering, he began to acknowledge the questions that were not answered and sought for those answers. He ended up believing and teaching things to other people, whether it went against the way the Athen government or not, he still continued his work.
Plato's Republic sparks this questions of authority and advantage in connection with justice, or just actions. By default it seems as those holding titles of wealth, class, or even social power, have this authority and advantage over what is to be done about justice, how to act in just ways, or even more what is to be considered just. By this influence of a hierarchy, citizens then become in a way infected with the thoughts and ideas put upon them. This can correlate to the New York Times article "Wrongfully Convicted of Rape, a New Jersey Man Finds More Punishment After Prison". Authority figures because they had believed that a man was the rapist of a young women, put this man though years of sufferance.
In Plato’s Republic, Socrates is on a mission to find out the true meaning of justice. He implores the same Socratic method that we are use to in order to help find this answer. On his journey to find the meaning of Justice, Socrates runs into Polemarchus. Polemarchus defines justice as, “to give to each what is owed to him” (p. 31).
Through becoming a teacher of the young men who followed him in Athens, Socrates effectively began to enter the public life. He was able to influence others through sharing his conclusions of justice, self-examination, and piety, and by asking relentless questions. Socrates effectively showed that an individual can live a private and a public life, even if Socrates was not directly involved in the policy-making in Athens. An individual can combine these two aspects of life in a productive way allowing her/him to live a full existence. These individuals can become teachers, politicians, and activists who use their focus on justice and piety in their private lives to advocate and create laws that promote true justice for the rest of the
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?”.
Plato's Republic is centered on one simple question: is it always better to be just than unjust? This is something that Socrates addresses both in terms of political communities and the individual person. Plato argues that being just is advantageous to the individual independent of any societal benefits that the individual may incur in virtue of being just. I feel as if Plato’s argument is problematic. There are not enough compelling reasons to make this argument.
